Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Simple....GET SOL OUT OF YOUR VOCAB. in regards to DEBT COLLECTION. Much like "Estoppel" These are "concepts" that were "bastardized" to fit a certain consumers tactics. THIS IS HOW WE ALL GET SCREWED. The law is the law. Simple as that. If we go and try to "customize" the law, we are "weakening" the laws meant to protect us. NO MATTER THE AGE OF THE DEBT, "PROOF" is not required, and all the other rights still apply. Dont get caught up in these "games" that posters create, I dont know LK personally, but his/her tactics ENDANGER the rest of us as consumers. I would NOT BE SUPRISED if ALL of this cases settle out of court and he gets $$$. THIS DOES NOT HOWEVER MAKE LAW. And if someone else "gets on the bandwagon" and files for the same THEORY, they can face HUGE LIABILITY. Why bother with all this nonsense and just use the ALREADY EXCISTING LAWS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp so what am I missing here then? lol my brain is about to explode ..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp -Here is a scenerio: A collection agency buys a debt from 1980 which was charged off. They pull a copy of the consumers credit report, and send AN INITIAL communication letter to the debtor. BUT, the debtor moved before the letter was received, but the letter was NEVER returned to the collection agency- THIS IS PROPER NOTICE OF VALIDATION. Now, the collection agency kinda forgets about the account, but about 3 years later, the collection agency is doing audits or whatever, and sees the account is still open. So they then pull another copy of the credit report and see a new address.- BOTH PULLS ARE PERMISSIBLE AT THIS POINT BY THE WAY So with new address in hand, they send another collection letter. The consumer gets it and says "HUH, I aint paying a debt this old" and throws it away. So the collection agency starts to call and send more letter.- ALL LEGAL SO FAR. Well then, the debtor gets mad at this and comes on CNET to find info. And the consumer sees validation threads etc etc and decides to write a request for validation because someone on here said it can be done at anytime- SOUND FAMILIAR ? SO they send the request for validation and of course it is NOT REPLIED to, except with another collection letter. In to add to it, upon receipt, the collection agency pulls another copy of the consumers credit report.- NOT TO FAR FETCHED, and still PERMISSIBLE. So the consumer sees threads like LK's and says, "hey, Im gunna sue, LK did and WON!" So they file suit alleging impermissible access and continued collection activity after receipt of the request for validation.- SOUNDS LIKE A COMMON SCENERIO HERE RIGHT? So the collection agency attorney knows the law, and says, "ok, lets play ball," AND SHOWS UP TO COURT WITH A COUNTERSUIT. The countersuit alleges the consumer filed this claim in "bad faith" in order to HARASS THE COLLECTION AGENCY! The consumers claim would be dismissed with 2 sentences from the collection agency: "Your honor, the inquiries were in connection with "the collection of a debt", here is the receipt for the debt which was included in a bulk account buy. Additionally your honor, we have PROOF the ORIGNAL letter was SENT to the consumer on such and such date, and it was NEVER RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE. Because the consumer did not reply withing the statutory 30 days, we were not required to CEASE COLLECTION ACTIVITY OR SEND VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT." CASE DISMISSED! SAD BUT TRUE!! Regarding the countersuit, it would be hard to argue an UNINFORMED or MISINFORMED consumer meant to "harrass" the collection agency by filing a suit which they "felt" was valid. JUST THE PURE embarasment to the consumer would be punishment enough you have to remember, the same case laws we cite, the collection agencies are aware of also, and have several cases which support them too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp ONCE lk....JUST ONCE.....SHOW ME I AM WRONG.... NOT WHAT YOU THINK, OR WHAT YOU THINK OF ME......JUST ONCE....ONE SIMPLE CASE TO SUPPORT YOUR TOTALLY OFF BASE THEORY!!!!!! PS-Just one
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp PROVE IT! Additionally, "quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by hiding90 A collection agency buys a debt from 1980 which was charged off. They pull a copy of the consumers credit report, and send AN INITIAL communication letter to the debtor. BUT, the debtor moved before the letter was received, but the letter was NEVER returned to the collection agency- THIS IS PROPER NOTICE OF VALIDATION. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No it isn't. At best it is a first collection letter. Validation is far different. " -WHAT IS MAHON ALL ABOUT THEN???? "
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Dont recall ever reading the case of "You silly little girl" but Ill try again on Lexis.com Umm Mahon...the age of the debt is IRRELEVENT.. if you decide to actually read it and not just call me a girl, you will see my scenerio IS FROM THAT CASE!!! AND it is YOUR CLAIM that we are talking about....... YOU ARE THE ONE THAT HAS TO STAND IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE>......WHAT CASES ARE YOU GOING TO CITE??? Just one ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Figures....but a debt from 1993 would be out of the SOL by 1999 right ???? And in case you think I am the only idiot who thinks this..... click here: So now I guess my idiocy is contageous http://www.cardreport.com/laws/statute-of-limitations.html "The Statute Of Limitations only covers lawsuits, and SOL expiration does not affect other types of collection action or reporting of the account to credit bureaus. The creditor or collection agency may theoretically continue with letters and telephone calls forever (although third-party collectors are subject to the "cease and desist" provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.) However, they will generally put much less effort into collecting "Out-Of-Statute" debts, and may give up easily. Out-Of-Statute debts can still be reported to credit bureaus for the time limits specified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Just one?? One case cite?? Hmm wow....you are right......BUT THE DEBT WAS NOT DELETED....Mahons LOST. The collection agency CAN STILL ATTEMPT TO COLLECT IT!!!!!!! I see you conveniently forgot about the other site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp I am wrong..I am wrong to think that I can educate you. I am wrong to think that you have AT LEAST one case on your side to show the judge. I am wrong to think that YOU will admit when you are corrected. I am wrong to think that you have a clue what you are talking about I am WAY WRONG! Oh- "The Statute Of Limitations only covers lawsuits, and SOL expiration does not affect other types of collection action or reporting of the account to credit bureaus. The creditor or collection agency may theoretically continue with letters and telephone calls forever (although third-party collectors are subject to the "cease and desist" provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.) However, they will generally put much less effort into collecting "Out-Of-Statute" debts, and may give up easily. Out-Of-Statute debts can still be reported to credit bureaus for the time limits specified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act." Isnt pulling credit reports "collection action" ?? "Remember that from earlier in this thread? Are you still taking the position that a collection agency has total access to a consumer's credit file for PP inquiries on something from 1980?" -YES! FOREVER. or until... -The consumer HAD REQUESTED VERIFICATION DURING THE INTIAL COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEBT and the collection agency pulls it in the verification period. -A court has ruled the debt was NOT VALID. - The consumer has requested "cease communication"..which doesnt the FTC's definition of communication include reporting information ??-THIS IS JUST MY THEORY BTW. ps-Just one?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp And there you go again NOT READING what I post. ""The Statute Of Limitations only covers lawsuits, and SOL expiration does not affect other types of collection action or reporting of the account to credit bureaus. The creditor or collection agency may theoretically continue with letters and telephone calls forever " The FCRA DOES NOT PROHIBIT A DEBT COLLECTOR FROM REPORTING A DEBT FOREVER!!!!!!!!!! The law ONLY applies to the REPORTING AGENCY. It really concerns me that this will be how you argue in court. When challenged, you resort to name calling etc. JUST CITE A CASE!!! And yes I KNOW that they can pull it for a debt that old...."collection of a debt" THATS ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY!! Becuase this is NOT a liability trial, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT THE LAW SUCKS!!! I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.....BUT IT IS THE LAW. -just one?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Im not going to court on this issue I dont have to cite a case to support YOUR claim...YOU MADE THE CLAIM....... WHAT WILL YOU TELL THE JUDGE WHEN HE ASKS WHAT YOU HAVE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CASE?? "Show me something that says a collection agency has unlimited access FOREVER to permissible purpose inquiries on a consumer's credit file. " You just answered it. IF IT IS PERMISSIBLE, THEN IT IS LEGAL, NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO THE DEBT IS FROM. just one?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp just one case ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp "A judge would throw the book at them. The concept is laughable. " WHAT BOOK>>>>??? One case....its all I ask.....BY THE WAY...I am not the only one who is interested in YOUR CASE. We are waiting in great anticipation for you to "reveal" your points and authorities supporting your case
trying to figure this one out It seems so obvious (to me) that Hiding & LK are only taking different stances because they are looking at the same info with two different goals. There is the law...which from everything I've read here and on other sites .... do not limit a CA from a PP as long as I have a debt remaining with them, regardless of the age. I can't really see that hiding & LK are arguing about what the law says (or doesn't). The disagreement is evidently about the application of the law in reality. The different between theory and practice. Hiding is quoting the law. LK is looking at how the law would be applied in a typical courtroom. Two different things. Hiding is NOT wrong, IMHO. The other point of contention seems to be hidings "motive" for posting the law. It also seems obvious to me that he is genuinely trying to be helpful. Sure it may feel uncomfortable to be quoted the law, but it can help keep some of us out of trouble by twisting the law for our own purpose (out of ignorance). I appreciate the information I read here. It's not something that I can find elsewhere. I would just appreciate less animosity, and more of a spirit of education and support, please.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / "Hiding is quoting the law. LK is looking at how the law would be applied in a typical courtroom. Two different things. Hiding is NOT wrong, IMHO. " -Couldnt agree more -Here is the problem though...ONE of us HAS EXPERIENCE "in a typical courtroom".....can you guess who ? http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...hreadid=58208&highlight=hiding90s+court+cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Agreed that a debt collector can legally pull a credit report for nothing more than aquisition of location information on a 7+ year old debt. Even though it may be legal, it is grossly unfair. Also agreed that a debt collector can continue to access credit reports, call, and dunn if the consumer misses the 30 day initial validation window. So what is a consumer to do about it? There are basically two separate routes to take. The first would be to demand validation, and should they fail to provide such validation sue them for non-pp inquiry. Any debt that is 7+ years old is not likely to be computerized and the records will more than likely be in some warehouse somewhere in a god knows where box, and no zombie collection agency is going to spend the money paying someone to attempt to dig it up, and even if they did, they probably would not be able to find it. If the CA cannot prove the debt exists or they have a right to collect on the debt, then there is no pp for pulling the account because there is no business relationship between the consumer and the CA. Alternatively, the debt is likely to have changed hands several times, and I doubt the debt collector could prove that they actually have the right to collect, even if they do manage to drag up the records. Furthermore even if the debt validation letter is sent after 30 days, the CA must still provide validation. Nothing in the FDCPA says that the CA must stop its efforts to collect, but the consumer can apply the common law doctrine of estoppel by sending an estoppel letter. An estoppel letter is the equivalent of telling a CA to shit or get off the pot. The purpose is to inform the CA that the CA's actions are forcing the consumer into a position where the consumer has no other recourse than to resort to the courts to attempt resolve the dispute and that should they persist in their actions and get sued, and any future filings will probably be construed by the courts to have been in good faith. Nothing more, nothing less. This is backed by the FDCPA: (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Nothing says that the consumer has to proceed with a suit after discovery proves the collection agency was right all along. The action can be voluntarily dismissed by the consumer with prejudice immediatly after the consumer discovers the CA was actually righ. I very seriously doubt a consumer would get hit with opposing attorney fees because the suit would be filed in good faith, and even if they did, it can always be appealed. The second method to deal with zombie CA's is to send them a C&D. In this approach, it essentially gives the zombie CA a freebie. A cease and decist should stop the debt collector from continuing to attempt to collect on a time barred debt. A credit report in this instance is worthless to the debt collector. They cannot file suit, they know the consumer is not going to pay, and they cannot communicate with the consumer. The only actual thing they can use the a consumer report for is to poison the consumer's files. I would love to hear a CA attempt to explain to a jury how they intended to use the consumer report in connection with a debt they cannot do anything with. If the CA persists in its attempts to collect and the consumer files a suit, once in court discovery can be done, and if it proves that the consumer had no business relationship with the CA, the consumer can amend their complaint to include the first inquiry. Problem solved.
