From all the horror stories I've read about the NAF, and how it's a juggernaut that eats consumers and alleged debtors alive, I'm left wondering: If the NAF is so powerful and so pro-CA, why don't all CAs and OCs simply do everything through arbitration? Why take the risk of facing a consumer who knows his rights under the FDCPA and FCRA and can stave off collection, when you can just have the NAF wave its magic rule-bending wand and pursue a judgment? Seems like there's something missing from this picture.
Do they have a valid contract that can require either party to accept binding arbitration if the other wants it? It might cost more than court and victory in court is ordinarily already very easy. The attorney might go with what he knows, filing where he's most comfortable.
It seems that nearly every contract you sign today has a binding arbitration clause. I haven't paid much attention to it until the past year or so, but I'm willing to bet it's been that way for many years. Besides, from all I've read on here about arbitration, it seems like it would be no big deal for a CA to "find" a "signed" contract that agreed to arbitration. Then they could say "So what if it doesn't meet the state's rules of evidence? This is arbitration, not a court."
NAF costs money , more money than court, they also take a chunk out percentage wise, plus the arbitrator gets money as well and then you still have to pay court costs to bring the claim to judgement . Where as if a collection lawyer is bringing you to court, he and his agency get all the moolah, and most people don;t go to court so they make a lot of money on defaults. Woofer
Ah, that makes a little more sense. Then it would seem to me that if I were a CA bent on getting as much money as possible and didn't give a flying rat about crazy notions like "consumer rights", first I'd pursue the debt through the courts. Then, if a successful suit couldn't be brought before the SOL expired, I'd go through arbitration (where it seems like rules get made up on a whim). I can't get a clear read on whether the SOL applies to arbitration proceedings, since they aren't suits.
Statute of Limitations does apply to arbitration as but when it comes to arbitration the only way to bet it is to send debt validation demand to the lawyer at the first sign of possible arbitration and if he moves forward without providing the demanded validation take him to federal court before the situation gets out of hand. It is the only way I know of to defeat an arbitration attempt. You also have a second chance to do it again if they turn it over to a local lawyer to reduce it to a judgment.
IME Federal court was not an option for me as I thought I had 90 days and my state it is 30 I also found out that many lawyers do not know this and or anything much about NAF.: ( I did send validation, did all the right things, but instead of going to court as they knew they would not win, they sent it off to NAF in stead and tried to railroad me there. I have found that you need to pay the $250 for the Participatory Hearing if you want the slightest chance of winning. I maybe the only one here that won against NAF but not really winning as the case was dismissed with prejudice.. I have not recouped my costs so far. ; ) Oh and some may say they have won, but when you dig deeper they say they got their case stayed or dismissed (not with prejudice) and someday unfortunately they will get a letter in the mail that there is a judgement against them. Bottom line get yourself a VERY VERY GOOD LAWYER and even with a good lawyer ,LEARN how to play the game with NAF, and if no lawyer be prepared for a year long study and much work . Woofer
