Out of curiousity, I called our Sec of State to find out if the 3 ca's on my report are bonded/licensed to collect debts here in TX. Interestingly, 2 of the 3 are NOT. Hmmm...I wonder if I can use this information against them if they don't respond to my estoppel letter for: 1) illegally collecting debts here in TX, 2) Illegally receiving my payments (I paid them) 3) They are in violation of the fdcpa here in TX with regards to ca's. Maybe there are other things I could find to throw in, too. I am sure there are penalties, etc. The lady said to refer to the AG to start the complaint process, if I wished. I know that you can't collect on a bond if one doesnt exist, so I'm not sure what would happen. If anything, you would think they would have to refund the money I paid them...which has nothing to do with deletion, but then again...if reporting to a cra is considered debt collecting, then maybe I could get deletion. I think I may be better off using this as leverage for deletion and let them keep the $. ANY THOUGHTS??
There seems to be a misunderstanding about bonding and licensing requirements,especially, for some reason among Tx posters. Many States have licensing and/or bonding requirements like Tx does, they are ALWAYS for their RESIDENT collection agencies, those that maintain an office and Corp. within that State. Some States, (and Tx is NOT one of them) limit the activities of NON RESIDENT collection agencies,or require special licenses or require that they conduct their activities by mail or phone.Some States, like Nevada, are "closed border" States,where ONLY resident CAs can operate. If you go to any of the CA industry sites that give SOL's they also give the State's restrictions on collection activities.
i've used this twice successfully in texas. According to the AG's office, outside collection agencies do indeed have to bonded to collect debts in the state of Texas, along with CA's in Texas. And they get quite offended when a CA outside of Texas tries to collect on a Texas resident without a bond. I've posted the specific laws regarding this in past postings. edit: http://www.occc.state.tx.us/pages/Legal/Laws/Laws_01.htm#Ch392
Re: Re: Oooh oooh..out of state ca's (TX) Thank you for the correction. I will add your link to my Tx page. I guess the Tx interpretation of the law hasn't filtered down to the CA industry websites.
Re: Re: Oooh oooh..out of state ca's (TX) it may well be as you describe, maybe the AG office doesnt realize it yet. (seriously..I wouldnt doubt this) Just because they hold the records (office of statutory documents, they hold all bond info) doesnt mean the know the law fully. However, the last place I used this on, an very bad CA in washington, tried to tell me this didnt apply to them and/or that they were bonded in Texas to collect debts. When I sent them an email from Nina Weston via fax showing that they had no bond info for the CA in Texas, they changed their tune and sent my money back and then some for my troubles. That was after the CA actually had their so-called attorney contact her to verify that she indeed composed the email. before that they were ignoring me and re-negging <sp?> on their agreement to delete for payment in full. Sucks, I actually wanted to pay the debt..all I wanted was a deletion, a deletion that they promised to give, but because they wanted to lie/cheat they ended up with nothing. edit: nina weston is the person who is in charge of statutory documents for the state of texas.
Re: Re: Oooh oooh..out of state ca's (TX) Hey Mark, Thanks!!! I spoke with Nina Weston yesterday. After reviewing the state law, you are right...there is no indication that this only applies to in-state agencies. Think I will file a complaint in person if ca doesnt cooperate. The funny part is that one of the CA's that isnt bonded is in Washington. The other is in CA. The one that WAS bonded is in Washington also and actually has a registered agent here in TX. This is great info. Did you say that you ended up with deletion after all? CA #1: No Bond, WA state, reporting SOL expires in 07/03; paid them $102 CA #2: No bond, CA, resporting SOL expires in 07/07: paid them $225 CA #3: Bonded, WA state, reporting SOL expires in 01/04: paid them $163 I know 2 of these drop in a year, but I want them of now, dangit, lol. Will send estoppel adn if no response, a kince follow up letter indicating that I know they are in violation. The money isnt a large amount...makes no difference if they return it. Just want deletion. Thanks Whychat, for postin ght elink to your site. You always pass on so much helpful info. One question, Mark, I have been looking for the TX laws governing credit bureaus. They are under a separate section, not the part about fcra/fdcpa. Had the link, but lost it. It had additional protection for consumers. Does this ring a bell??
Re: Re: Oooh oooh..out of state ca's (TX) http://www.occc.state.tx.us/pages/Legal/Laws/Laws_01.htm#Ch392 Scroll down--this link has the pertinent consumer laws all together. Credit bureaus are covered under Section 20.
Re: Re: Oooh oooh..out of state ca's (TX) Thanks jlynn...I know I have read it before....but there;s some interesting stuff in there. The part about suing the cra over incorrect information catches my eye. Usually the cra will tell you that you must take up the issue with the oc. Well, this little diddy (if Im reading it correctly) says that you CAN sue the cra for reporting the info and if you win, there is no injunctive relief needed...they MUST delete...in addition to paying damages, attorney fees, etc. Next question is...I know these are state laws. Do you have to sue in state court or will small claims court work...since they both operate off of state law. The reason I ask is that I read on cn that small claims will not get a deletion, only fees/damages, etc. Now, if §20 is applicable, then small claims WOULD be eligible for automatic deletion undre TX state Business Code. Make sense? I know, I'm on a snipe hunt today, lol. This is all useful info in helpng us all understand the limits and consumer protection rights are. Thanks Jlynn!
LOL, I haven't figured that out yet. My most favorite part though is - negligent noncompliance - if they make an "oopsy", it costs them $500.
Well, I'm going to post that part out here, and see what legal minds think. I'm reading as part of the judgment they must correct the files within 10 days. (c) In addition to liability imposed under Subsection (a), a consumer reporting agency that does not correct a consumer's file and consumer report before the 10th day after the date on which a judgment is entered against the agency because of inaccurate information contained in a consumer's file is also liable for $1,000 a day until the inaccuracy is corrected. So why couldn't you sue in small claims? Its part of the statute that they correct their error, and makes no mention of "injunctive relief". I may have to consider experimenting on Experian on this one. They keep insisting GMAC is reporting one way, GMAC says they aren't, and NO OTHER CRA is reporting this information. They all communicate with GMAC electronically.
Here: (section F is the kicker) 20.08. Consumer's Right to File Action in Court or Arbitrate Disputes (a) An action to enforce an obligation of a consumer reporting agency to a consumer under this chapter may be brought in any court as provided by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.), as amended, or, if agreed to by both parties, may be submitted to binding arbitration after the consumer has followed all dispute procedures in Section 20.06 and has received the notice specified in Section 20.06(f) in the manner provided by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. (b) A decision rendered by an arbitrator under this section does not affect the validity of an obligation or debt owed by the consumer to any party. (c) A prevailing party in an action or arbitration proceeding brought under this section shall be compensated for the party's attorney fees and costs of the proceeding as determined by the court or arbitration. (d) A consumer may not submit to arbitration more than one action against a particular consumer reporting agency during any 120-day period. (e) The results of an arbitration action brought against a consumer reporting agency doing business in this state shall be communicated in a timely manner to other consumer reporting agencies doing business in this state. (f) If a determination is made in favor of a consumer after submission of a dispute to arbitration, the disputed adverse information in the consumer's file or record shall be removed or stricken in a timely manner. If the adverse information is not removed or stricken, the consumer may bring an action against the noncomplying agency under this section regardless of the 120-day waiting period required under this section. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1396, § 33(a), eff. Oct. 1, 1997. his deletion is IN ADDITION to the fines/fees, etc!! Of course, I could be reading it wrong...but lets hope not. According to this, the CRA is just as liable...it doesnt affect the actual liability of the debt, just affects the info being reported.
