A CA popped up out of nowhere, claiming a 1998 check is owed to their 'client' who turns out to be just another d/b/a of the CA. The intriguing thing is that apparently, neither the CA, or the 'client' legally existed until 2002. The CA is trying to claim that they not only communicated, but VALIDATED the alleged account in 1998; so they don't have to validate again... Here's the rub, if it was a physical check, from what I've seen, there is no SOL... However, the CA hinted that the transaction was audio, so the big question, is what did their company, which didn't even legally exist in 1998 allegedly provide in 1998, to allegedly validate the alleged check. And now, the big question, if there is no alleged physical check, do the rules change?
Hi Jam was this alleged check a forced post debit for a bank account ? I have seen companies debit a bank account and use their own check # or take the consumers ck # as a form of payment. but thinking back was this option available back then? interesting issue here, since there is no physical check, signature etc I don't see what the CA would have used for validation. is there a phone recording giving the creditor permission to authorize any charges ? the Ca is claiming the debt occured before they were in business, you mentioned a DBA . is it possible they were using another business name in addition to the one you noticed have you checked the BBB ? some of these agencies are hidden under different corporate establishments I just went through the same thing , I was able to catch on by contacting the city business license for the CA address . to my suprise the company showed ABC Collections DBA cde collections then I checked with the secretary of State and found the corporation name. the CA tried to be sneaky by hiding there true corporate name ( violation) it was shown as suspended but when I typed in the other corporate name given by city hall licensing both the agent for process and addressed matched up. amazing what some people won't do to be deceptive and make $. let us know what you find out
The intereresting thing here, is I at least have one little piece of evidence against them; they're claiming that this has been reported continously to my credit files since 1998; well that's funny, I have an Experian printout of their trade line clearly showing "DATE FIRST REPORTED" JUNE 2004.
§ 807(14), and § 808(8) question When you make a BBB dispute about CA, and the CA's direct contact with the Better Business Bureau, responds on the OC's letter head, with the address of the CA, would that indicate that the OC is using the the fictitious name of CA. Thereby taking the OC exemption away from itself under § 803(6).
Jam sounds like this company is begging to get sued. from what you are stating it appears the OC has their own inside CA ? I have seen some CC companies have their own recovery department . of course the name is different but what you stated here is just plain absurd! wonder if they are stupid enough to pursue you further, you have enough evidence now, I would think to get them in alot of trouble with the AG and get $. is the company local in your state?
Fun, actually, all these are different d/b/a's, which now at least are actually officially existing, at least in their own state(s)... And the best part, is if you read the letter allegedly from the OC, no matter how you read it, they're admitting to violations... If the OC validated the account, then the CA didn't validate the account, therefore the CA's continued collection activity is a violation. The 'OC's' letter was missing 807(11) notice, which would be ok, if everything jived that it was really the OC who was replying, but there are at least a half dozen refererences to us/we where the us/we they would have to be referring to would be not the OC, but the CA. The biggest of which is 'WE'VE' been reporting, the OC is not reporting, the only company who is reporting is the CA... Its the perfect example of why company's with more than one d/b/a had better make sure that they tailor their correspondence to the d/b/a which they are claiming is actually mailing the letter. Because its obvious that the CA's employee was in 'CA' employee mode when he wrote the letter claiming to be from the 'OC'... The best part, they claim that whomever they allegedly talked to six years ago, told them to cease calls regarding the account, so they supposedly cease everything, except if you believe them CRA reporting, which is contradicted by Experian & TU since I have more than 2 years of regular reports showing that they were not on my credit report, and a print out of their trade line from Experian which shows that they didn't report the account for the first time until June 2004. I'm up to $8,000 in my scavenger hunt of violations, and I've only known about this company since the end of June. The best are, despite the 'OC's' letter which says that the account was disputed in 1998, and them PERSONALLY RECEIVING through me, and the BBB, validation requests, they've verified once with both CRA's and didn't put the dispute notation on either one of them; and that would be a double duty, $1,000 FDCPA, $1,000 FCRA * 2 violations alone, and $100 MIN NO MAX under PA state law, since an FDCPA violation is also a violation of PA's Consumer Protection Law...
Nope, they're one state over, and the d/b/a's aren't licensed with the Department of State, and from as far as I can tell, not even the parent company is registered to do business in the state. But hey, at least they've registered one of their d/b/a's with the 2 states they claim that company is at, that's more than the company was registered with before 2002...
*bumped* for Butch, WhyChat, et. al. Hoping that they have some of their always insightful wisdom on this situation.
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... If you don't have anything from your bank how can there be a bounced check?
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Well, lb... I just don't want to T-B C&D, and have them try to pull something after the fact, especially since they are 'CLAIMING' that it is... Although, since according to their written claims, they stopped all activity, except for reporting (which they didn't even start until 2 months ago), just based on an alleged request for no more calls on this matter, that is a little bit of a hint that they may not...
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... I so love this CA... Butch, do you have a bit of time to look over an C&D/ITS...
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... The CA may be collecting for another part of the CA, that claims to have bought the debt. Who do they say is the original creditor, to which the debt was incurred in 1998, and what "business" was this OC in? FDCPA requires them to provide this on request.
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Posting a collection TL on a CR is collection activity. If you sue for posting erroneous information, what would they do, tell the court they don't have to provide any evidence of the debt since they did that in 1998?
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... b*i*n*g*o And, in their written response, they personally raise the arguement that the person who allegedly did the transaction, and the 'me' they spoke to in 1998, may not have been 'me'... So they themselves raised a Sullivan v. Equifax co-orelation.
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Here's my first attempt at writing an ITS... Please be advised, that since your companies have repeatedly refused to provide legally valid, and acceptable validation of this alleged debt, since your companies began reporting this matter to my credit reports, in June 2004, I am hereby forced to exercise my rights under the Fair Debts Collection Practices, § 805 to demand that all future communications regarding this alleged, and unsubstantiated debt be ceased and desisted. The only communications permitted from this point forward will be from Mr. AGENT, Esq. in regards to resolving the matter of this pending lawsuit against your companies for willfully and knowingly violating my rights under federal law in this matter. Notice of Plaintiff's Intent to Sue Plaintiff ... Defendants ... Individually, and as officers and agents of defendants C1 Doing Business As: C2 Doing Business As: C3 C/O: AGENT Registered Agent for defendant, C1. C/O C1, Inc. Registered Agent for defendant, C2. C/O: C1, Inc. Registered Agent for defendant, C3. Despite defendant, C3's, written admission that said alleged account was in dispute, since 1998, when defendant, C2 began reporting this account to Experian in June of 2004, defendant C2 willfully and knowingly reported false credit information to Experian, including the fact that the account was not in dispute, in violation of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 807(8), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 623(a)(3). Plaintiff seeks $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, for said violation of The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 813(a)(2)(A). Despite defendant, C3's, written admission that said alleged account was in dispute, since 1998, when defendant, C2 began reporting this account to Trans Union in June of 2004, defendant C2 willfully and knowingly reported false credit information to Trans Union, including the fact that the account was not in dispute, in violation of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 807(8), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 623(a)(3). Plaintiff seeks $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, for said violation of The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 813(a)(2)(A). Despite defendant, C3's, written admission that said alleged account was in dispute, since 1998, and that defendant, C2, was in personal possession of a validation of debts request from the plaintiff, in accordance with The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 809, when defendant, C2 verified this account to Trans Union on July 16th of 2004, defendant C2 willfully and knowingly reported false credit information to Trans Union, including the fact that the account was not in dispute, in violation of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 807(8), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 623(b). Plaintiff seeks $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, for said violation of The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 813(a)(2)(A), and $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act for said violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 616(a)(1)(A). Despite defendant, C3's, written admission that said alleged account was in dispute, since 1998, and that defendant, C2, was in personal possession of a validation of debts request from the plaintiff, in accordance with The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 809, when defendant C2 verified this account to Experian on August 5th of 2004, defendant C2 willfully and knowingly reported false credit information to Experian, including the fact that the account was not in dispute, in violation of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 807(8), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 623(b). Plaintiff seeks $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, for said violation of The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 813(a)(2)(A), and $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act for said violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 616(a)(1)(A). Despite defendant, C3's, written admission that said alleged account was in dispute, since 1998, and that defendant, C2, was in personal possession of a validation of debts request from the plaintiff, in accordance with The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 809, when defendant C2 verified this account to Trans Union on August 13th of 2004, defendant C2 willfully and knowingly reported false credit information to Trans Union, including the fact that the account was not in dispute, in violation of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 807(8), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 623(b). Plaintiff seeks $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, for said violation of The Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, § 813(a)(2)(A), and $1,000 in damages allowed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act for said violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 616(a)(1)(A). Due to the egregious nature of all of the defendants willful and knowing, and the frequency and persistence of both defendants noncompliance, the nature of all of the noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional, plaintiff hereby seeks the full amount allowed by law from all of the defendants, in this matter.
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... They're claiming that their second DBA is the original creditor, in their reporting. However, <evil grin> their articles of incorporation for the parent company, and the parent company's ficticous name request states... "Purchase and collection of account receivables it has purchased." not just for the first DBA (CA), but for the second DBA (OC) as well; so by their own filings with their states office, they've admitted that the company which they are claiming is the OC in their credit bureau reporting, is not the OC, but a debt buyer, which makes them both subject to the FDCPA, which means I have an even more direct arguement to bring the letter from the OC in violation of the FDCPA, because they aren't the OC because by their own admission in their parent company's filings for their assumed names, they've already stipulated that they are in fact a debt buyer.
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Oh, notice I didn't even mention that all three verifications were in violation of § 809(b) as well. There's even a better one which I am keeping as the ace in the hole, while I re-tool that arguement, especially since I have their incorporation papers, and all their other filing docs safely saved in PDF format, as evidence to make that arguement unescapable...
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... *************** GET THE BASICS HERE. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ***************** > interesting case please keep us up dated on it.
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Ignoring their claim of contact in 1998, did they send you the required letter with consumer rights disclosure within 5 days, or with, their first recent contact letter?
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... They sent nada, until I escalated the dispute via the BBB, (AND FAXED a hard-copy of the BBB complaint to them, with a copy of the original validation letter), when they verified with TU, the next day was when they sent the only communication from them on the alleged OC's letterhead, without even the "this is an attempt to collect a debt/this is from a debt collector" notice. They began reporting to EX, noticed it on PG, pulled the dispute copy of EX to get their address, then it appeared on TU, sent the dispute letter before the end of the month that EX shows that they first reported it on, so my arguement of my dispute being within 30 days of the initial communication would still be sound, if I needed to resort to the 809(b) violations, thanks to their own intelligence, I don't have to... Needless to say, there are many more violations than the ones included in the ITS, I didn't even include that each violation of the FDCPA is also a violation of PA State Law subject to a *MIN* of $100, additional.
