Hold on - I read this on the Unique site: If a library does not use secondary placement, then our second letter in our initial placement service can not include wording that discusses the possibility of being credit reported. According to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you can not threaten to do something that you will not do. You can not have an idle threat. Therefore, our initial placement efforts must be in a sense watered down which means you'll get lower results from initial placement because we can not say anything about the possibility of being credit reported. That's interesting. That seems to convey that they are aware of and try to abide by the FDCPA.
DanceRat: Check my other thread. I found an FTC opinion letter stating that "fines" are not considered debts under the FDCPA. So what does that mean for us? Are they even allowed to collect on this, much less put it on a credit report. here's the link: www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cheswort.htm Tell me what you think.
I honestly don't know. Regroup, new plan. I am sending my grovelly letter to the library tomorrow, will let you know how that transpires. If they say, sorry, we have to let Unique take care of it, then I will have to go to court because I can't afford to have this on my record for 7 years! Okay, here are my thoughts. If they are municipal fines then they need to be treated as such. Pay them and then get them off of the report, similar to Wisconsin suspending drivers' licenses until THEIR library book fines are paid - but then it gets okayed and life goes back to normal. Maybe they aren't municipal fines but are legal debt. They have to be SOMETHING, right? By what right do libraries even have to collect fines? There has to be a code or a charter or something. My library was a county public library. I think it is considered as debt, and that Unique believes that they are covered under the FDCPA. I haven't gotten my return letter yet, but I do plan on following up with a second letter stating the W letter. We will know from their reply to THAT letter what or how they view themselves. These aren't parking fines, which ARE subject to municipal code, I think. You know, I think I want to write the FTC and ask THEM for an opinion letter. Because this whole thing is getting way confusing. I read my whole state code on libraries and the only thing I could find on fines is: PROHIBITED ACTIONS xxxx Willful detention of library property. It shall be unlawful for any person willfully or maliciously to detain any library materials belonging to a publicly supported library or privately supported school, academic or research library or incorporated library for 30 days after notice in writing from the librarian of such library, given after the expiration of time which by regulations of such library such materials may be kept. The notice shall bear upon its face a copy of this section and of xxxxx. [Formerly 357.830; 1975 c.476 §30] PENALTIES Penalties. Violation of xxxx is a Class B violation. Such conviction and payment of the fine shall not be construed to constitute payment for library material nor shall a person convicted under this section be thereby relieved of any obligation to return to the library such material. [Amended by 1971 c.743 §360; 1975 c.476 §31; 1983 c.208 §2; 1999 c.1051 §176] Okay fine, but where would it state debt collection? Oh. confused, confused confused.
Taken from the Philbin ftc letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/philbin.htm The FDCPA defines "debt" as any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.
It is clear to me that library fines are not considered debts and therefore not covered under the FDCPA. (bad news)However, Unique National Collections are debt collectors and their actions are covered under the FDCPA(good News, they must validate). I do not think a collection agency can place a fine on your credit report. I am still looking for my state code so that I can research the law pertaining to this. does anyone know where I can do free legal research online for New York State?
See, now I think what LKH brought up does lead to believe that library fines and/or missing materials are debt. It is a material something received from a transaction - not municipal fines and it is for personal use. Of course, now I am entirely confused. But if U. is quoting FDCPA and library debts are construed as real debt protected under the FDCPA *then* they have to validate and therefore the W letter does apply. And they not reporting to the credit bureaus that the account is in dispute does apply. I think. I am going ahead with validation #2 as soon as I receive my letter back from U.
Library Fines are not "debts" because they do not originate from a transaction involving the "PURCHASE" of property or services for personal, family or household use. This may seem like bad news because in their original state they are not covered under the FDCPA and the library is not bound to the FDCPA. However, when it is turned over to a collection agency and is collected as a debt we have a whole new ball of wax. My letter explicity says that "This is an attempt to collect a debt..." so they are treating it as a debt by their own definition. The collection agency in and of itself is bound to the directives of the FDCPA the library is not. We are not concerned with the library because they are not reporting on our credit reports the collection agency is. Also since by their own words they are treating this as a debt rules of validation should apply, not for the library but for the collection agency. Please Advise I need to send out my partial validation letter today.
Thank You Thank You Whyspers, I have been up all night going over this in my mind. I knew that the actions of the collection agency were covered under the FDCPA. I became confused with all of the other opinions I was hearing on this thread, but you can't get around it by their very definition they are collecting on a debt and if this is true and they have admitted it is then they are bound by rules of validation and I can proceed with the validation process with them, I am not concerned with the library, because if I have to go to court I will be suing Unique National Collection Agency for a deletion of THEIR tradeline and $1000. per violation. So am I o.k to proceed with the second validation request?
Robin, If you read the FTC definition of debt that I posted above, it does not say "purchase", it says "Transaction". To me, renting or checking out a library book is a transaction of sorts. I believe that library fines, penalties, dues or whatever you want to call it, does qualify as a debt.
My definition of debt comes from section 803 (5) of the FDCPA and also is covered in the Chesworth opinion letter from the FTC. And it explicitly says fines "do not originate from a transaction involving the "Purchase" of property or services for personal, family or household purposes. However, in my opinion when they are transferred to collection agency they are debts by the very definition and are then covered by the FDCPA.
