Trying to collect a previously disputed debt...HELP

Search for Subsequent CA Strategy.

Essentially, if you are in the litigious vein, you could ITS the CAs involved.

Why?

The previous CAs for 15 USC § 1692e(6)(B) - The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to become subject to any practice prohibited by this title; namely continued collection activity on a debt in violation of 15 USC § 1692g(b).

and the new CA for; you guessed it... 15 USC § 1692g(b).

 

It is very common for Collection Agencies to sell an account to other agencies once they realize the consumer is wise enough to send a validation letter according to Federal Law. It is not in their interest to tell the purchasing agency why they are selling the account, so whether you sent a validation letter is not generally noted when an account is sold.

Honestly, the easiest way is sometimes to spend another .39 and send a follow up DV (debt validation) letter to the new CA or JDB (junk debt buyer). You can threaten litigation, but most likely the CA will do precisely the same thing the last one did: sell it to yet another unsuspecting agency.

Remember that your account is likely being purchased for pennies, and it is not in the financial interest of each CA to pass on documentation to the new buyer. Just think of it this way: when you sell a used car, do you mention that the reason you are selling is because you could not get the car to work? You might, but you also might be inclined to trust that the new buyer will purchase it without finding that deficiency.

 

Bella: Just because they can sell it, doesn't mean that it is legal for them to sell it.

By selling it, they are subjecting the consumer to illegal actions which they themselves could not do, in violation of the FDCPA.

Yes, they purposely buy/sell sans documentation, and previous dispute history, but guess what, that's not the consumer's problem.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. -- I'm sorry officer, I didn't know that you had to stay UNDER the speed limit. Ignorance of the disputed nature of the debt is not an excuse.

The law is clear, you can not represent that if your account is bought, sold, traded, exchanged or given-away, that the consumer can be subject to action prohibited by the FDCPA. Guess what, continued collection activity is prohibited by the FDCPA; and there is no better way to represent something than to actually do it.

 

jam:

I am not in any way giving any implied " rights " to sell an account, I am simply describing what companies do. You know as well as anyone CA's and JDB's knowingly break the law every single day, with specific strategies, systems, and overzealous reps. I was not describing what ought to be, but rather what is.

 

I have a good one, I just sent an ITS to a law firm, for an account which was DVed (and in the midst of me CA) with the previous CA.

The best part, the lawyer's had the letter sitting on his desk almost a week before mailing it.

The lawyer's now claiming that almost as soon as they put the letter in the mail, they returned the account back to the OC; gee, do I detect a rent-a-letterhead... Especially when the squiggly on the original letter looks nowhere near the SIGNATURE on the reply to the ITS/suit.

 

jam is making things HAPPEN! GO GO GO!

Good job! Love to see 'em squirm!

 

Bella: There's always another way to look at it, and it's a way that CAs REALLY don't want us to think of.

Caselaw which was argued by CAs is that future CAs/CAAs are safe from not providing validation notices, if a previous CA/CAA provided the notice; if the notice is provided it's considered redundant and superfluous.

If future CAs/CAAs want to argue that the consumers alleged receipt of previous CAs/CAAs validation notices, applies to them. The previous CAs/CAAs receipt of debt validation letters, 'inconvenient' communications preferences, and cease and desist notifications should also apply, and any consumer's additional notification of those are simply redundant and superfluous.

Especially since the purpose of the FDCPA is to protect consumers.

Rule #1: Use the enemy's caselaw against them, whenever possible.

 

The counter-argument makes as much sense as the original CA argument, but attorneys throw up whatever they want all the time, just to see what sticks.

The CA's original claim that some earlier CA sent "lots of letters" is usually used as phone deception to evade timely validation requests from unsophisticated consumers. When used in court, it is probably just smoke when they know they got caught. Some judge inexperienced with FDCPA and consumer law might buy it, or buy it as an excuse for a bona fide error ("We thought they already sent it. After all, they were required to. How could we have known? (all BS)"), the CA gets off, and their attorney earned his fees.

Since each CA claiming to be collecting on an account might be justification for a consumer needing to request validation on that specific CA's claim, particularly if there is no way later CAs can know with certainty that the consumer has received notification letters, or whether the account transferred to them accurately reflects transactions with earlier CAs, no way a consumer can even know conclusively that a new CA is collecting on the same account as an earlier CA without requesting validation, and since FDCPA is a consumer protection law, and places such notification requirements on "debt collectors" within 5 days of their initial contact, this CA position doesn't make logical sense consistent with the consumer protection goals of FDCPA.

Towerrat had commented on this on ArtofCredit, and thought it might fly in some jurisdictions. Is there any published decision at the appeals court level?

 

I'm pretty sure the cases I read were appeals cases.

The majority of them were CAA being sued by a consumer who argued that the CAA didn't send the validation notice when the CA who hired the CAA did. The CAA argued, and won that their office was covered under the CA's original validation notice, and their firm didn't have to send a second 'extraneous' notice.

 

That might best work if the hired CA indicated that it was collecting on behalf of the original CA. Wouldn't that make the original CA more liable for any illegal actions of the second CA?

But even if the second CA was relieved of liability for not sending the consumer notification of his right to dispute, since at least there is some argument that the owning CA did notify the consumer of those rights, does that relieve the second CA of its duty to validate in response to a timely validation request?

Disputing and requesting validation is what FDPCA provides to allow the consumer to determine whether a debt is valid, when as is generally the case, the consumer receives a collection letter from a company with which he does not have an established business relationship. How else could the consumer determine whether this is a debt in collection with two different CAs, and which one to pay?

Are there any cases of a CA actually purchasing a debt claiming they are covered by the selling CA's notification?

 

The courts that took the issue on looked at it more as if it would provide the debtor who didn't take the opportunity to avail themselves of their validation rights, a second chance.

It'ld be interesting to see a case where the consumer availed themselves of their rights, and it was passed on sans validation.

 

Fight fire with bigger fire! Get an attorney, and sue. If you have copies of previous DV letters, and other evidence, then just go after them. I'm sure they'll remove TLs and back off.

Or, put an end to this cycle by offering only what they paid for the debt(pennies) to remove TLs and close debt permanently. Hold threat of suit out there.......!