I remember reading recently about some legal precedence for an OC being held responsible for CA infractions. Then some discussion of possibly using this to increase leverage by highlighting this potential liability to the OC because of CA actions. Can someone point me in the right direction for finding this information? Many thanks. -Cliff
Hi Cliff, If nobody else remembers where it is I'll find it for ya. It's an interview with LeFevre of FTC fame. It's not case law but it is the FTC's stance on the subject. You're right, the OC is responsible. I've already successfully used it with an OC. Hopefully somebody has it bookmarked. I'm having puter trouble.
Thanks Butch - usually I am reasonably successful in finding stuff like this, but am not so lucky on this one. Thanks to you and anyone else for the effort to help me find it. -Cliff
with link to opinion letter: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=22079 LKH, email for sample letter: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=2&postid=173130#post173130 Here's the interview fave butch growling dude is referring to: http://www.watchtheweb.com/FTCTalks.pdf Sassy
I have done this very thing with OC's and CA. My attorney has stated that the person who employ's the CA to do their work is just as responsible as the CA itself. They are fully accountable for any illegal actions of the CA which works on their behalf. You must first alert the OC to their CA's illegal actions in writing. If the OC then fails to correct the problem with the CA or the actions continue to be illegal, you then have the groundwork to sue the OC for any and all violations of the CA. I have done this once and we settled out of court rather quickly! There was no argument presented by the OC's attorney over his client being sued for the CA's actions. It can and does work! Tac
Hi! Haven't posted in ages so bear with me. I have a co-worker in a situation that I think is illegal. A CA put a lien against her checking account for a car they already repo'd!! She went to withdraw cash and found out that her acct was -64K! And on top of that they sent out a notice for court (she never told me if it was indeed a subpoena) that stated that a warrant could be issued for her if she didn't show up in court (she did). I thought that the two things this agency did was against her rights. Isn't it? Thanks, trina PS she said the agency is Primus or something.
Haha. I was waiting for someone to respond to that. I don't think a ca can just place a lien against a debtors checking acct unless they have a judgment against them.
Don't think so....in my case these are Medical Collections being pursued by the local Credit Bureau(persumably on a contingency). Strategy here is to send letters to OC trying to get them to have the CB back off under threat of potential liability for CA. I have the CB on several documented violations, and the intent to sue letters are going out CRRR Monday. Plan to cc the OCs with the letters FCDPA implying liability as well. Plan to then hold on tight and see what gives. -Cliff PS: Thanks LKH LKH
yes it was -64000. At first we thought first chicago bank had a computer glitch, but then she started to suspect it was about the car. I don't know what kind of car it was, but am I missing something major here? She swore she hadn't gotten anything until the day they took the money out. they say there are 3 sides to every story--his,hers,and the truth. Is that the case here, or is this CA stupid enough to give her this much room to sue? trina
I agree LKH. Why would you allow a car to get repo'd if you had the money to pay cash for it? Curiouser and curiouser. Gib
Fave Butch growling dude: You've not seen those 24k gold-plated hummers? ;-) Trina, Something is hokey. Sassy
Especially with Medical Providers. Now if ya really wanna make this work just insert a suttle yet unambiguous demand for their (the Medical Providers) Malpractice Insurance Carrier and Policy Number. And drop it at that. MP's are especially concerned with being the target of legal action. ~~
-$64,000 the bank would be on the phone calling your HOUSE, WORK, CELLPHONE, CALLING YOUR NEIGHBORS, SEND SOMEBODY TO YOUR HOUSE... OH NEVER-MIND, THEY WOULD JUST NEVER APPROVE THE $64.000 WITHDRAWAL ON AN ACCOUNT THAT NEVER HAS HAD MORE THAN $1,000 ADB!!!
