From http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=54340 A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. If the underlying contract is an apartment lease, and now CA is trying to collect 48,000 dollars for ALLEGED damages, how does this section apply here.
no judgment. THe apartments must have contacted the CA that they regulalry use for rent collections. The apt's lawyer has made it clear that he would not be suing in this matter, so they just sent it off to some bottom feeder CA. My last name is incorrect. Does the last name have to EXACTLY match what CRAs have, for this to appear on CRs? So far, i dont see anything on CRs The address they send this letter to is not mine, but where the leasing office was located, so the USPS forwarded it to me, alsmot after 40 days since they mailed it out
ok, I would ask the CA for validation my CMRRR they are required to prove the charges for any claim they may have against you. since there is no judgment and the apt attorney stated that they will not pursue it then maybe they don't have sufficient evidence to back up their claims. if they can't prove it they can't collect it. just don't agree to pay anything until after YOU talk to a lawyer you may get yourself into a spot if you allow them to intimidate or threaten you. ck out lawguru.com you can ask an attorney in your state a free legal question as far as the CRA is concerned if its reported and they have not validated its a violation same thing goes if they continue to pursue you for collection when they have not validated. you can fix the errors in your name address etc by calling the CRA they are required under the FCRA to correct it as they are required by law to report only accurate info. if the CA reports the acct and it appears on your CR I would dispute it as not yours . AFTER you send the CA a request for validation by CMRRR it sounds like this issue may turn into something big down the road so keep all your paperwork in order
Usually, a lease provides a damage provision, if it can be shown that in all likelyhood that the consumer caused in one way or another the damage to occur, then that would be an amount allowed by the contract; as long as the actual amount of the damages can actually be calculated.
Well, all the apt complex has is the fire report that does state fire was caused due to misuse on my part, and I am sure they have PAID BILLS for repairs. I had a lawyer who spoke with their lawyer and explained i was judgment proof, etc, and i live in a no wage garnishment state. So then they just sent this off to a CA. So i dont know if providing PAID BILLS and fire report constitutes sufficient debt validation. Also, they are NOT LICENSCED in my state, i verified with dept of insurance. THe apt complex is pretty CHEAP, it seems like it, and obviously realized that suing me would waste them more money, so they did what they do with other LATE RENTS and gave it to the CA. the last name and address the CA HAS IS INCORRECT, not what CRAs have
from what I am reading here there was a fire in your apt due to your willful misconduct. thinking out loud ... I would see how the apt complex would claim that you were negligent and should be held liable for the expenses they incurred as a result of the property damage. on the other hand the apt complex I believe is required by law to maintain property insurance that would cover an event like this. now if they had to pay a deductible, I could see them asking you to reimburse them for that after they provided proof from the insurance company of course. I would check with your states dept of consumers affairs or dept of real estate they may be able to answer this question. also the city licensing division such as code enforcement may be able to inform you of the requiements. act like you are an owner of an apt complex and see what your state requires. I hope this helps you can also ask an attorney a free legal question at lawguru.com
1*on the other hand the apt complex I believe is required by law to maintain property insurance that would cover an event like this. 2* if they had to pay a deductible, I could see them asking you to reimburse them for that after they provided proof from the insurance company of course. fun4u2 ==================== 1* Dato77 stated in another thread the apt complex policy had a $100,000.oo deductible. 2*With a $100,000.oo deductible a $48,000.oo claim would leave Dato77 stuck with 100% of the damages. Why would they take out a policy with such a huge deductible? This don't make sense to me. Unless it's to get insurance at a big discount and they recover damages under $100,000.oo by falsely placing the blame on the tenants. Seems to me the apt complex was also negligent for knowingly underinsuring the complex and should be held equally or fully liable for the expenses they incurred as a result of the property damage.
Well, they do repeatedly call the landlord cheap, maybe that's why, the law says that they have to buy insurance, if the law doesn't specify a min. deductable, they're complying there... But does that make the consumer responsible for up to 100K, that would be up to a court to decide.
A new user name doesn't change the answers you've already received, nor the ones you are now receiving in attempting to recreate the wheel -- not fair to those trying to help you: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=59371 Sassy
Oh, I probably forgot the password or something. Anyway, I am dgj77, so I do not intend to conceal myself or anything. At this point I am trying to come up with a strategy to have the unlicensed CA who contacted to violate my rights. Thats pretty much the only option I am left with. Regarding insurance, I guess they really had a 100K deductible, why else would they give this to a CA. The apartment complex was BOUGH by another a month ago, and the name was changed. Maybe the paperwork will get misplaces somewhere along the road. And whoever submitted this to a CA, was not prudent enough to supply the CORRECT mailing address, or name. This is probably the MOST unusual matter one can find himself embroiled in. I have done so much search and research online about this type of matters, and 100% of the cases, the insurance would cover the damages and the suit would be between the insurance carrier and the tenant.... But this is very odd, trying to have this collected thru a CA (again, they want to get this cheap way...since they did not want to pay their lawyer to sue me) Right now, i am also researching whether this is even covered under FDCPA, since one of the commentaries by FTC mentioned that TORT CLAIMS are not covered under definition of debt. ANd I believe this is a tort claim, since this "debt" did not arise out of a financial transaction....
Oh, I probably forgot the password or something. Anyway, I am dgj77, so I do not intend to conceal myself or anything. At this point I am trying to come up with a strategy to have the unlicensed CA who contacted to violate my rights. Thats pretty much the only option I am left with. Regarding insurance, I guess they really had a 100K deductible, why else would they give this to a CA. The apartment complex was bought by another a month ago, and the name was changed. Maybe the paperwork will get misplaces somewhere along the road. And whoever submitted this to a CA, was not prudent enough to supply the CORRECT mailing address, or name. This is probably the MOST unusual matter one can find himself embroiled in. I have done so much search and research online about this type of matters, and 100% of the cases, the insurance would cover the damages and the suit would be between the insurance carrier and the tenant.... But this is very odd, trying to have this collected thru a CA (again, they want to get this cheap way...since they did not want to pay their lawyer to sue me) Right now, i am also researching whether this is even covered under FDCPA, since one of the commentaries by FTC mentioned that TORT CLAIMS are not covered under definition of debt. ANd I believe this is a tort claim, since it has to do with damages and since this "debt" did not arise out of a financial transaction....
If a tort claim is not covered under FDCPA as a debt, would reporting something that is not considered debt under FDCPA to a CR be against law. I have read numerous staff opinions, and commentaries example http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/palmer.htm And trying to understand if a debt is NOT a "debt" under FDCPA, whether it can be places on the report
Am trying to understand if something that is NOT a "debt" under FDCPA, whether it can be put on a report ================================ if it's NOT a "debt" under FDCPA ,CAN it be placed on a report??????????
#1 - The last thing you want is for this to *NOT* be a DEBT in accordance with the FDCPA. BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE *S*O*L*. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. GOODBYE! At least as far as the FDCPA is concerned. Essentially the CA could do anything they want to make you pay this debt, as long as it didn't violate any other federal or state law. But if this isn't a DEBT as defined by the FDCPA, then the FDCPA doesn't apply at all. #2 - Unfortunately, the FDCPA definition of debt, doesn't have anything to do with FCRA reporting, anything can be reported on your consumer credit report; as long as it can be correctly attributed to you as a consumer.
So, you want to find a 'financial transaction' to base this account on. The lease/rental agreement is a financial transaction; everything else arises out of that financial transaction, just as if your landlord was charging you for damages to your own apartment under the lease.
=============================== I don't feel a tenant ought to pay a $48,000 damage claim just to save the land lord a couple a hundred bucks on insurance premium do you? Also what would have been wrong with informing Dato77 of this fact at move in so that he could have prevented the 48000 loss to himself by taking out a $100,000 policy on his own to cover this? As it stands the Land Lord negligently contributed to a $48,000 loss incurred to Dato77. ================================
LBrown, He's not paying 48k to save the LL a couple hundred bucks, he negligently caused a fire -- will he be held responsible or won't he? Most tenants are advised to get or have renter's insurance. Problem is, there is no judgment -- no one has said he's responsible and last I read no one was attempting to collect, it was all speculation. Sassy EDITED to add: Sorry, this thread indicates a CA is now trying to collect. So the question remains, how far does he push it, knowing he could well be found responsible.
Yes, a CA that is not LICENSED in my state is trying to collect on this. basically, I have nothing to lose. NC is a very consumer friendly state. Their lawyer knows this and I bet he explained to them. So they moved on to a CA, which sends me a very GENERERIC dunning letter. Please remit 48,000 dollars and help us avoid this drastic action, which is to advice the client to sue me... well, the client did not sue me. And I was offering them couple thousand dollars just to settle this issue amicably, but they wanted 25K, NO LESS. So I guess they are just trained to submit ALL ISSUES arising out of dealing with tenants to Collection agencies. I offered them some money, whatever i could afford to pay them, without admitting liability, if they push me, i will hire a lawyer and make sure that they spend at least 10 -15 thousand more on this case. I dont care, got nothing to lose, if they gonna spoil my credit, I can borrow money and pay to lawyer i guess, just to make their legal costs go thru roof. If they force me into bankruptcy, i might as well make them pay fe more bucks for their councel. Apparently, they dont want to negotiate and are very unreasonable and ridiculous. I was even trying to find out if the under insuring the apartment complex would be conisdred against public policy but so far cant find anything they definitely deserve to be punished. And the firemen took their sweet time before they shut the sprinkler system off, but it was too late - the water had gone all the way down to first floor. BTW. the lease agreement clearly stipulated that renters ought to buy insurance for PERSONAL BELONGINGS, since the landlord would not be responsible for personal belonging. (nowhere did the lease mention RENTERS INSURANCE or INSURANCE FOR FIRE) No sane tenant would have contemplated that at any point during tenancy he/she might have been held responsible for 48 thousand dollars.....Or that the apartment complex LACKED proper fire/hazard insurance
