Jump to content

Torden

Members
  • Posts

    1,663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Torden last won the day on May 6 2013

Torden had the most liked content!

Profile Fields

  • Location
    West By God Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Torden's Achievements

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)

246

Reputation

  1. There remains one other explanation for being dunned on an account you have no records or memory of. That explanation is a mixup somewhere with the OC or JDB records. I have had a JDB try to collect an account from my where the stated OC is a company I have never done business with. When I said it was not mine, they wanted a copy of an ID theft police report. I told them that I had no information that showed it to be ID theft, and demanded that they send me certain information, such as the signature from the original account agreement, to help me determine whether or not this was ID theft. Then I told them if they failed to send me this evidence in 30 days, then I would assume it's just a matter of them or the OC getting records mixed up.
  2. Did the airline identify what this fee was for? I also wonder what would have happened had you decided not to pay the fee and they deny you a boarding pass, with regard to what you had paid prior ... would you be able to get all of that back? The airlines can do this because almost everyone will pay and they know that. But what was it for or did they just say "a fee"?
  3. When a collector calls me about someone else's debt, many will make sure they never say to me that they are a debt collector (oh, but I can tell). If I answer and they ask for another party, I ask who they are. They say they are not allowed by law to say, and then I say I am not allowed to pass on a phone call without saying who it is. The most recent one of these was from a company called "Credit Collections USA, LLC". Now if they had simply used an obscure company name, would they have this problem? They tried to tell me it's to protect people's privacy. Huh? Really? And yet collectors expect people to give out information to them, that violates privacy (CCUSA wanted to know where the party they were calling for was and got angry when I say "I cannot tell you that for privacy reasons"). That company does not take inbound calls on their caller ID number, and does not leave messages, and it was fluke event that I even picked up the phone that time. Normally I would call back the caller ID number and by their own stupidity (a common thing with debt collectors) I could not reach anyone. So if I had not picked up the phone, there would not have been enough of a show to be worth tracking them down (but I did, called their main number, and told them not to call me ever again ... and they have not so far). But apparently they don't want people to call them back (by taking calls at the number they call from or leaving a message saying where to call ... oh probably because callbacks might discover they are a debt collector).
  4. I wonder how well that service works for deaf people.
  5. They might say to go buy one of those new pre-pay debit cards. People need to NOT do that. So what can be said back to convince them that is not going to ever happen (when for collectors that ask for them, lots of people do)?
  6. There are court rules. It can be hard to do, but if you can show they intentionally lied, you might be able to get a court sanction against them. But in the mean time file your motion to deny summary judgment showing there remains material facts to be decided (including their new lie).
  7. This can be done PER phone number. You must state the phone number and at least claim it is your phone (this will be void if it is not your phone).
  8. It's more expensive for an actual attorney to call for a collection call. I suspect it's fake.
  9. How likely is the CA to get records from the phone company that show the number belongs to person Y when person X sends in the demand for cease communications stating that phone number?
  10. I never verify anything by telephone ... not last four ... not address ... not even my name. If they say "we just want to know if we are calling the right number" then I say "if you have not verified the number is right, you should not even call in the first place".
  11. Motion to Compel providing copy of proper bill of sale applicable to the account in this case
  12. Yes, for CRA disputes, they use SSN to identify accounts, and DL (or presumably non-driver ID) to confirm the communication (rarely do scammers have both, although that is becoming more common).
  13. Can the hard pulls be disputed with the CRA ?? ... "did not give permission ... did not apply for credit ... should not be in category 3"
  14. It very well could be some new employee "processed" your letter wrong. You have a copy and the green card, right? If they do try to collect, get the name of the person if you can. Then "give them another chance" (because courts favor you more if you do) to understand you have send them a cease communication. This letter would acknowledge they have made a "bona fide error" and they have an opportunity to correct it now (they might use "bona fide error" as an excuse in their defense to your FDCPA violation lawsuit). Giving them the opportunity to correct it now helps take away that defense in court. In this letter reference the FDCPA statute involved. Make it look more like an attorney wrote it. Be prepared to give them as many as 3 chances (this being the 2nd). THEN if they still violate, sue them for 2 violations (or more if they do more before you get to file the suit).
  15. If the new attorney files a lawsuit, he might be in for an interesting surprise. You could file 2 concurrent motions, one to join the lawsuits, and one an interpleader motion to ask the court to decide which plaintiff is valid. If you get a ruling on the interpleader, it would eliminate one of the plaintiffs permanently. Both motions would need to be served on both plaintiffs.
×
×
  • Create New...