Hi, This is a little long. I have been contemplating sending a time-barred type letter to the CA and CRA but it's kind of tricky because for one, the alleged debt is 4k, and second, the SOL law in NJ is not clear. I have read here it is better to dispute directly with CRA since the 30-day validation period is no longer avaiable and there are no consumer protections afforded under FDCPA with disputes (after the window has closed). First, I do not dispute the debt is mine but the amount is way overblown. I can easily prove from my documents I owe perhaps $500-900 of it (depending on if they can show they are legally allowed to add collection fees based on FDCPA). Second, the CA is assigned the debt, they do not own it, and I would think the OC would sue, not them (although they threatened me over the phone about it). I woke them up by disputing with them as to the validity of the debt a few months back (it's been on my report 5 yrs running) and now they call me every day. They actually sent me a photocopy of the debt from the OC, but it's not the same amount they are reporting to CRA. ( I probably have some violations here, but rather not go that route--yet.) Lastly, it's important to note it shows 'payment contract', promissary note (don't know if it's a legal state contract). This is a contract to pay for classes on the fly at a auto training institute (there is no set dates when payments were due on the contract). This ties into the NJ SOL. The last payment was over 5 yrs ago. Here are the NJ statutes: 12A:3-118. Statute of limitations a. Except as provided in subsection e. of this section, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date. and from the same section: g. Unless governed by other law regarding claims for indemnity or contribution, an action for conversion of an instrument, for money had and received, or like action based on conversion, for breach of warranty, or to enforce an obligation, duty, or right arising under this chapter and not governed by this section must be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. L.1995,c.28,s.1. I will pay it if I have to (with deletion), but the CA refuses to take less than the 4K (I have not admitted to the debt, either.) I don't have any fear of stating my case in court, because I do have the records, but if I can use SOL, what part of above would apply? Just trying to weigh the consequences of sending such a letter (OC retaliation?) Tks for the input.
Yes, thoroughly, and they answer general questions , but not this one since its state-specific. At the least, I only ask a humble interpretation of both clauses of this statute. Believe me, I have contacted the AG several times without response. I would like to start with SOL as affirmative defense, but unlike some, I am not going to move forward without having all my ducks in a row, that would make me look foolish.
New Jersey has excluded "services", such as your school fees from it's UCC statutes. Normally your debt would be under the standard 4 year UCC SOL for goods and services. Since it is excluded, ( and it is NOT a contract in writing since it is not for a fixed term with fixed interest and payments) it falls under the same 3 year SOL as credit cards. http://whychat.5u.com/States/state-nj.html
1*I have read here it is better to dispute directly with CRA since the 30-day validation period is no longer avaiable and 2*there are no consumer protections afforded under FDCPA with disputes (after the window has closed). 3*First, I do not dispute the debt is mine but the amount is way overblown. 4*I can easily prove from my documents I owe perhaps $500-900 of it . (depending on if they can show they are legally allowed to add collection fees based on FDCPA). 5*Second, the CA is assigned the debt, they do not own it, 6* I woke them up by disputing with them as to the validity of the debt a few months back (it's been on my report 5 yrs running) and now they call me every day. 7*They actually sent me a photocopy of the debt from the OC, but it's not the same amount they are reporting to CRA. 8**( I probably have some violations here, but rather not go that route--yet.) 9**I have not admitted to the debt, either.) 10*They actually sent me a photocopy of the debt from the OC, but it's not the same amount they are reporting to CRA. wheaty =================== 1*When did they change the law by doing away with the 30 day period? 2*This does not foredit your rights to protection under FDCPA. 3*This has nothing to do with why you demand validation . 4*Why would you want to prove anything when it's the CA who has to do the proving??????????? Using your documents is a good way to shoot your self in the foot.Leave them out of this unless ypu're trying to give them the rope to hang you with. This is a good way to cement this to your reports for the full 7 years and to get jacked with overcharges on insurance and loans. 5*How do you know this??? 6*After 5 years the sol probably has expired in which case you don't oew them a cent. 7*How will matching the amounts improve your credit and score?????? 8*In many if not most cases-That's the route it takes. 9*So what did you say? 10*It's likely past sol there fore you don't owe them a thing so why quibble about the amount?????
Re: Re: SOL Questions "3*First, I do not dispute the debt is mine but the amount is way overblown." -3*This has nothing to do with why you demand validation . -You better read the validation/verification thread again Lbrown...THIS IS what validation is all about. "4*I can easily prove from my documents I owe perhaps $500-900 of it ." -4*Why would you want to prove anything when it's the CA who has to do the proving??????????? --They dont have to PROVE anything except in a court of law. Additionally, if the consumer CAN PROVE the debt is less than what is reported, THIS IS A FIRST STEP IN PROVING THE "UNREASONABLENESSS" of an investigation. "6* I woke them up by disputing with them as to the validity of the debt a few months back (it's been on my report 5 yrs running) and now they call me every day. " -6*After 5 years the sol probably has expired in which case you don't oew them a cent. --The SOL DOES NOT prevent the collection agency from attempting to collect a debt FOREVER! --A cease communication letter will take care of this. "7*They actually sent me a photocopy of the debt from the OC, but it's not the same amount they are reporting to CRA. " -7*How will matching the amounts improve your credit and score?????? --Missed the point again. THIS IS GREAT EVIDENCE IN A "UNREASONABLE INVESTIGATION" CASE!!! "9**I have not admitted to the debt, either.)" -- THIS IS IRRELEVENT. GO AHEAD, ADMIT TO IT...THEY STILL CANT REPORT INACCURATE INFO AFTER A DISPUTE, OR VIOLATE ANY OTHER PART OF THE ACTS. LIABILITY FOR A DEBT IS NOT PART OF THE PROTECTIONS "Using your documents is a good way to shoot your self in the foot.Leave them out of this unless ypu're trying to give them the rope to hang you with. This is a good way to cement this to your reports for the full 7 years and to get jacked with overcharges on insurance and loans." -Its also GREAT EVIDENCE -INCLUDE ALL THE INFO YOU HAVE IN A DISPUTE TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. -They will probably verify the account AS IS.....THEN YOU HAVE THEM ON A "UNREASONABLE INVESTIGATION"
Re: Re: SOL Questions Thanks for all the answers (WhyChat, Lbrown, Hiding)...just have a few questions to your responses before I proceed. hiding wrote: I believe what you are saying is since the CA is not bound by FDCPA to conduct an investigation upon request from consumer (the debt is 'assigned'), they better investigate if a consumer-initiated verification requesst is given to CRA. I have disputed with TU twice (the first as not mine) and the second dispute came back frivolous BUT will be invesitgated 'if' information is provided from an AG or correspondence from CA in connection with the debt and attached to the dispute. I can do that. However, if the CA is the exclusive 'furnisher of data' to the CRA, aren't they also liable to FCRA for accuracy as well? What about partial C & D? I have sent them partial already to respond in writing only but they continue to phone. In addition, the contract is for a fixed amount with my sig, but on one of the copies provided by CA there is a list of classes with the costs next to them (no sig), adding up to more than the amt on the contract. I believe the CA is using the higher figure plus fees to report to the CRA. I did not take some of those classes. Legally, can I plainly go by the contract and not be concerned about the list they provided?
Re: Re: SOL Questions Correct Wheaty My opinion is there is no such thing as a "limited" cease and disist. The statute requires a debt collector to cease all communication. Butch will disagree
