Research help needed...

When we (Re CA) make the purchase or servicing transaction, we receive a power of attorney that gives us the inherit rights under the original cardholder agreement. We have the ability to "bind" the original creditor in certain situations. This gives us the right to settle an account and REQUIRE that the original creditor, such as Citibank, MBNA, Household etc. remove the original trade line and OURS.
WestCap
===========================

Some one was asiking a while back about getting the oc to delete in addition to The CA.
Don't know who the poster was or on what thread they posted but here is your answer!!

This gives us the right to settle an account and REQUIRE that the original creditor, such as Citibank, MBNA, Household etc. remove the original trade line and OURS.

 

Re: Re: Research help needed...

There have been a lot of post on the subject , where to find them is the $64K Question Eh?

 

The answer to what you are looking for may be found back in Merrie Olde England, in the Common Law - a doctrine called the "Master-Servant Doctrine". Basically, it states that the Master (the OC) is responsible for the actions of the Servant (CA).

BUT, Congress has added some changes to that. In passing the FDCPA Congress assigned to the CA, and the CA ONLY, the liability for violation of FDCPA. This, however, does not apply to non-FDCPA torts, such as an ongoing Fair Credit Billing Act dispute and violation, or a creditor trying to Assert the "Holder in Due Course" doctrine to try to get immunity from product defects (the Holder in Due Course doctrine was declaed illegal and unenforceable in certain circumstances back in the 1970's).

 

Its unfortunate that when Kaliban moved the subsequent CA strategy letter to the sample letter forum, he edited out the discussion on it.

Head to the FTC site and do a search on "American Family Publishers". There was a consent agreement signed. This does not hold the weight of case law, but is the premise I used when I sent a letter to the OC in regards to the CA's actions.

The FTC used the FTC Act when settling with AFP.

You might also look to your state statutes. In TX, the statute is clear that the OC can be held liable for the actions of the CA.

 

I don't know for sure, but I would think it would make a difference if the debt was sold or assigned, which is one of the reasons for asking the CA who owns the debt. If the OC still owns it and has just assigned it to the CA for collection, I would think the OC is responsible.

But if the CA has BOUGHT the debt, it seems to me that the OC would be out of the loop. They have been paid, and if the CA collects anything it belongs to them, if not, it's their loss. I think this is at least one other item to look at.

 

OK, I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV (or even on Creditnet), so this is just my opinion based on what I know about business law. I could be off base, and it could depend on your state. With that disclaimer (which probably means ignore this), here goes--

If the OC still owns the account, they may have some responsibility. Whether or not they do, why not make them think that you've checked and they do. I think you'd have to notify them of the problem so they have a chance to rectify it. So, why not contact the OC and tell them that you understand that Evil CA is attempting to collect a debt for them. You want them (OC) to know that Evil CA is violating the law. Give them the examples, then say something like "since you actually own this account, I will take whatever action against both you and Evil CA that my attorney and I deem reasonable to get this situation corrected. I'm requesting your assistance to prevent this matter from progressing to the next level."

You haven't really threatened legal action. You haven't defined "the next level." You and your attorney may deem that doing nothing is legal. You haven't said that.

Again, just food for thought.

 

But if the CA has BOUGHT the debt, it seems to me that the OC would be out of the loop.
Hedwig
============
Say oc sells the debt to bone crusher CA who violates the law by sending out goons to break legs to collect.
OC would be liable as oc should have exercised better judgment in who they were selling the debt to.
I see where it makes no difference whither the law the CA violates is criminal or civil
So perhaps the oc is not out of the loop on a sold debt.
THE END ** *** ** LB 59
"""""""""```~~~```'"""""""""

 

Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the OC:

Re: Busted OC- Account No. xxxxx
Risk Management Alternatives â?? Account No. 3xxxxx


To Whom It May Concern:

On November 5, 2002, I sent a demand for validation of a debt to SW Credit Systems, who was alleging a debt owed to your company. See attached letter, and copy of Certified Mail Receipt Number 7002 0860 003 xxxx. As of the date of this letter I have had no response from SW Credit Systems.

On December 12, 2002, I received a letter from Risk Management Alternatives indicating that Busted OC had now placed this debt for collection with them. Attached is a copy of the letter I received.

Please be advised this is your formal notice that your collection agency, Risk Management Alternatives, is in violation of Federal Law â?? continued collection activity of an alleged debt, the collection for which must cease until proof is sent, pursuant to FDCPA § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g](b).

At this time, I will call your attention to a press release from the Federal Trade Commission:

MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION MARKETER AGREES TO SETTLE FTC CHARGES THAT IT APPROVED DECEPTIVE
DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES
American Family Publishers (AFP) has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the FTC Act when it hired collection firms and knowingly approved or assisted their use of deceptive debt collection practices. Under the
proposed settlement agreement, AFP would be required, among other things, to instruct its debt collectors to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in the future. â?¦


Any further communication from you, or your hired collection firms before I receive the demanded proof of this alleged debt, and I will instruct my attorney to begin drafting a formal complaint.

Regards,
jlynn