When a Debt is Sold

I'm in the same boat.

What I demand from the CA is to have them ask the original creditor to send me a letter directly telling me that they have sold/transferred the debt to this CA and that I am now to deal only with this CA regarding this debt.

Then I tell them that in lue of this, I will accept copies of the contract between the creditor and the CA.

To date I have never received either.

If I believed all the letters I get, I owe the same debt to 10 different parties. I tell the CA that other CA's are claiming that I owe them the money for this debt. I futher explain that because of the multiple claims, I require proof of the assignment of debt before I will acknowledge their right to collect it from me. Otherwise, I will assume that their efforts are a scam and will treat it a criminal attempt to steal funds from me. This includes turning them over to the FBI and or local police for attempted extortion.

 

Think about it. A person whom you've never heard of claims to be working for a company that you have never conducted business with calls you up and starts threatening you if you don't send them money.

Would you pay it? I wouldn't. How do I know they are for real? How do I know where that money will go? How do I know they didn't steal my name and phone number and are trying to pull a scam on me? How do I know their claim is any more legitimate than the other couple dozen claims sitting in my file?

A little parnoia is good for you.

 

I've been re-reading the FDCPA, and this section troubles me:

Is it me or does it seem like all the collection agencies have to do is send you the name and address of the orginal creditor to satisfy the 30-day verification proof?

 

Kristy W

I believe that the paragraph you mention simply addresses the right of a consumer to dispute or verify a debt. It doesn't address the legitimacy of a CA's claims that they bought a debt or are authorized to collect for the original creditor. If the CA's claim is fraudulent then they have a problem because their fraudulent claim is in writing. I think that would be a matter for your state attorney general.

I don't think the paragraph precludes a consumer from demanding proof from the CA that they have the right to collect. It just doesn't address it. I personally would demand the proof.

 

I would definitely demand the proof as well - these collection agencies seem to run away in confusion when anyone ever quotes the law to them. I was just wondering on the wording.