Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

jlynn · Jun 24, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

Originally posted by susanna
An update -- Got a call from a rep who identified herself by name saying she was from AMEX. I asked if she was with NCO and she replied No, I'm from AMEX. When I got off the phone, I noticed the phone number on the caller ID is NCO's phone number.
Is misrepresenting yourself as the OC when you're the CA an FDCPA violation?
Click to expand...

Sec 807

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

Have you checked the licensing and bonding requirements for your state, and whether NCO meets those requirements.

Make no mistake, for 9K, I would say that Amex is likely to sue you. I just paid a chargeoff recently, after bullying there CA's for 1 1/2 years. The last one was licensed and bonded, dotting their i's and crossing their t's, so I paid it as I figured my luck was running out.

You might also check your state's laws to see if you can hold the OC accountable for the actions of the CA - in TX you can. I also sent Amex a letter one time letting them know the violations of their CA, and quoted some stuff on TX law and the American Family Publishers case. I got rid of one CA that way as they recalled it.

To see what I'm talking about, go to the FTC site and search under American Family Publishers. They signed a consent agreement for fines because of the actions of their CA (too bad it was a consent agreement and not case law).

jam237 · Jun 24, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

Originally posted by susanna
Jam, what do you mean by this? If they sell it off to another CA before the court date, the new CA can get a default judgement right away? I'm confused...
Click to expand...

CA #1 can still get their default judgement, even if they don't own the account on the hearing date, *IF* you don't show up.

CA #2 would still own the debt, and you would still have a judgement to CA #1, for the same debt.

Basically CA #1, would get the cash from CA #2 buying the account, and have the judgement to get the full amount from you as well.

This is why you *HAVE* to show up no matter what, because if you don't, they win without even having to put on a case. They don't even have to show up to put on the case, they only need you to not show up.

lbrown59 · Jun 25, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

Originally posted by jam237
CA #1 can still get their default judgement, even if they don't own the account on the hearing date, *IF* you don't show up.

CA #2 would still own the debt, and you would still have a judgement to CA #1, for the same debt.

*Basically CA #1, would get the cash from CA #2 buying the account, and have the judgement to get the full amount from you as well.

This is why you *HAVE* to show up no matter what, because if you don't, they win without even having to put on a case. They don't even have to show up to put on the case, they only need you to not show up.
Click to expand...

CA 2 could sue and get a judgment also leaving you HAVING TO PAY BOTH JUDGMENTS.
Don't you just love 2 for the price of one.

IrishDiva · Jun 29, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

Well - - a friend works as the client service manager for a CA in my area (she's one of the nice people you can every once in a while run into at a CA) - they have several clients who have hired them to collect, and when they call, they say "Sprint" or "MBNA" or whomever they are working for at that time. Their reason for this is that the collector is representing the OC. Just what I heard.

jam237 · Jun 30, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

ID, unless they *ARE* an actual employee of the OC, representing themselves as employees is a false and misleading representation. The FTC makes it emphatically clear that they must state their employer when asked, and not that they may state that the OC is their employer when they aren't.

FTC Commentary of FDCPA
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm

Section 807(14)

Section 807(14) prohibits the "use of any business, company, or organization name other than the collector's true name."

1. Permissible business name. A debt collector may use a name that does not misrepresent his identity or deceive the consumer. Thus, a collector may use its full business name, the name under which it usually transacts business, or a commonly-used acronym. When the collector uses multiple names in its various affairs, it does not violate this subsection if it consistently uses the same name when dealing with a particular consumer.

2. Creditor misrepresentation of identity. A creditor may not use any name that would falsely imply that a third party is involved in the collection. The in-house collection unit of "ABC Corp." may use the name "ABC Collection Division," but not the name "XYZ Collection Agency" or some other unrelated name.

A creditor violates this section if he uses the name of a collection bureau as a conduit for a collection process that the creditor controls in collecting his own accounts. Similarly, a creditor may not use a fictitious name or letterhead, or a "post office box address" name that implies someone else is collecting his debts.

A creditor does not violate this provision where an affiliated (and differently named) debt collector undertakes collection activity, if the debt collector does business separately from the creditor (e.g., where the debt collector in fact has other clients that he treats similarly to the creditor, has his own employees, deals at arms length with the creditor, and controls the process himself).

3. All collection activities covered. A debt collection business must use its real business name, commonly-used name, or acronym in both written and oral communications.

4. Relation to other sections. If a creditor uses a false business name, he both loses his exemption from the FDCPA's definition of "debt collector" (section 803(6)) and violates this provision. If a debt collector falsely uses the name of an attorney rather than his true business name, he violates section 807(3) as well as this section. When a debt collector uses a false business name in a phone call, he violates section 806(6) as well as this section.

When using the mails to obtain location information, a debt collector may not (unless expressly requested by the recipient to identify the firm) use a name that indicates he is in the debt collection business, or he will violate section 804(5). When a debt collector's employee who is seeking location information replies to an inquiry about his employer's identity under section 804(1), he must give the true name of his employer.
Click to expand...

Log in / Register

Forums

Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

jlynn Well-Known Member

jam237 Well-Known Member

lbrown59 Well-Known Member

IrishDiva Well-Known Member

jam237 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in / Register

Useful Searches

Threatening NCO VM--Need Advice

jlynn Well-Known Member

jam237 Well-Known Member

lbrown59 Well-Known Member

IrishDiva Well-Known Member

jam237 Well-Known Member

Share This Page