Pale Rider

Members
  • Content Count

    389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Pale Rider

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....
  1. Yes they have to subscribe to the CRA to report info. But, the CRA's have recently started requiring creditors to submit a minimum number of accounts, so they wouldn't report even if you paid.
  2. Experian did this to a friend of mine. After months and many letters of correspondence they decided they needed all sorts of documents to prove his address. My opinion would be to have not started a new dispute and busted them at the end of 30 days. If they had been corresponding with you previously, they had and knew your address and needed no further information. I think this is just a new trick to stall consumers.
  3. My understanding is, if the account was assigned the CA can only recommecnd that the OC file suit, but cannot file themselves. If the account was purchased, the CA can file suit if your state statutes allow. If you can hold them off until SOL, you have a lot more leverage to deal with them. Some things to consider: Are they licensed in your state or do they need to be to collect? Are they currently threatening to sue? Have they committed any violations during DV process? If you are going to try settlement, Start with very low amount and ask for deletion from CR. They may hold off on lawsuit if you are attempting to negotiate, and this may give you time to get past SOL. The fact that they have not sued yet may be a good sign. If you don't have any assets or your personal property exemptions and wage garnishment laws are in your favor, they may realize they cannot recover even if they do sue.
  4. You don't have to go down to section C of 805 to find the answer for CA contacting you at your workplace. Section A clearly states that if they know they cannot contact you at work, they cannot. This is completely seperate from the Cease Communication section in C. § 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c] (a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt -- (3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication. As for Section C, I don't see that it has to be all or nothing. You posted a good point, that if phone calls are inconvenient, they cannot contact you in that manner. Offering them the option of contacting you only by mail shows that you did not cut them off completely, and they still had a way to correspond.
  5. Contact the Legal Support Unit of the Secretary Of State of Texas. http://txsos-7.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/index.shtml They can give you info on CA's being bonded or not. The CA must be bonded not licensed. Here are the statutes covering CA's in Texas http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/fi/fi0039200.html#fi004.392.101
  6. They cannot garnish your wages in Texas. They may go after your bank account, but I don't think they have to notify you at this point.
  7. Here is a link to some Texas Statutes including Statute of Limitations, Judgments, Appeals http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/cvtoc.html
  8. Was the judgment in Texas court or Colorado? Were you served with summons? You may be able to get judgment vacated if you were not properly served. If they brought suit in county other than where you lived. If they did not stop collection activity (judgment) after receiving validation request and before providing validation. You may want to consult with lawyer to see what the deadline is for filing appeal or motion to vacate.
  9. That is correct. It is a pay site now.
  10. It seems to me I read somewhere that if you don't bring the account to current status, a payment will not affect chargeoff once the account goes into default. But, I could be wrong, and I can't locate that right now. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
  11. First, you don't have to provide them with any personal information to prove the debt is not yours. They have the burden of proving you owe the money. The SOL in Kentucky is 5 years for open end accounts. What was the date of last activity on these accounts or when did they go into default? Was the Dr. bill included in bankruptcy? If yes they are in violation trying to collect. When did the utility bill go into default?
  12. I picked a union and left the number blank. I was approved instantly.
  13. The FDCPA does not place a time limit on response by the CA. Some states, such as Texas, require the CA to respond in 30 days, even if it is to say they need more time. They can choose to never respond, but must cease all collection activity, including entries on CR, until they validate. The method discussed here most often, forces the CA to respond in some fashion. 1 Send DV to CA cmrrr. 2 When you recieve green card, send dispute to CRA cmrrr. 3 If they don't respond, the CRA must delete entry. If they do respond with verification, they must mark entry as in dispute. This usually results in more violations that can be used as leverage against CA.
  14. If you can't pay because of your economic situation, that is a choice you would have to make. If you max out your cards and leave the country with no intention of paying the debt, that is the definition of fraud. Here is a portion of the text from the link I posted above: In order to successfully prosecute a defendant for bank fraud, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) must present evidence that when submitted to a jury or judge would prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the defendant knowingly executed, or attempted to execute, a scheme or plan by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; 2. that the defendant acted with the specific intent to defraud; 3. that the false pretenses, representations or promises that the defendant made were material; 4. that the defendant placed the financial institution at risk for civil liability or financial loss; and 5. that the financial institution was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or an equivalent agency as defined by Title 18 U.S.C § 20.
  15. We were discussing the possibility of fraud when someone runs up the balances amd then leaves the country. That would look like fraud to just about anyone, and could end up in civil and criminal charges being filed. The difference here is that consumers have the right to debt validation for a variety of reasons. To assure the wrong person is not being billed, to make sure balance is correct, to insure against abusive practices by CA's. Violations by CA's are a seperate issue than if the debt is owed or not.