Jump to content

Torden

Members
  • Posts

    1,663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Torden

  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.
  16. The lack of a signature makes it weak in court. Send them an AGREEMENT FORM ... but make it sound positive. Write a letter with "thank your for negotiating with me on this matter". Then "I have obtained the following settlement agreement form from my attorney and signed it. Please sign this and send back one copy, keeping the other". Make sure there is space for both written and printed name. If they still won't sign by a person, then it shows they don't really intend to be honest in this (like most CAs). Write directly to SM and ask them specifically if Windham is authorized to settle for SM, and within what terms.
  17. This would be more (and very) applicable if it were the case you did not find out about the service until after the fraudulent filing of "proof' of service became known to you. For example if there was a summary judgment because of this, THEN you found out what actually happened, you could show the court that not only should the judgment be vacated, but the plaintiff should gain no advantage whatsoever for the prior suit file (if it is now past SOL ... they lose). That's in addition to asking the court to sanction the plaintiff's process server, possibly disallowing them to do service for some period of time, like maybe forever. But once you know you are served, all this becomes much harder. The best you can do is have the court calendar reflect the date you become aware as the date you were "served". Things like sanctioning the process server should still be possible ... "he intended to commit deceit on the court".
  18. This is a primary reason I always tell people to only deal with CAs and JDBs in writing. You write to them, and their answer must be in writing. Don't answer phone calls from them, or say the person they are calling for is not available (never suggest calling back but if they suggest that they will, suggest back that they are wasting their time). Force the communication in writing. Some people might accept that a recorded phone call will work. It might. But it is weaker evidence than what would be in writing. It's easier to make fake phone call recordings than to fake the paper, ink, fingerprints, that they use in written communications. If they refuse to give you an address to write to the first time they call, then tell them that's what scammers do and hang up ASAP.
  19. The OC is the same school you are attending now, or a different one? If it is the same, then you owe money to the school that is allowing you to still attend classes ... but is acting in a way that makes it hard (or impossible) for you to get them paid (especially if they won't take the money and work with you to be sure they are paid). You need to set up a meeting with a TOP LEVEL financial official at the school and have that important conversation about why the school is operating in a self-defeating manner. Take a copy of this post with you. They need to learn that the whole debit/credit system in this country is so goofed up that "operating procedures" are never adequate for dealing with it, and depending on them for credit matters is contrary to the educational process. Of course schools need to shut out people that won't pay their bills (so it is reasonable for them to check ... but they need to understand that checking alone is not enough). Your case is clearly one of "procedures gone awry" (e.g. someone with decision making authority needs to override the procedure book). If the school refuses to cooperate, and refuses to work with you, then at some point you should consider taking it public (including revealing their name).
  20. What is your financial status with regard to paying the classes you are now attending? Have you paid the school up front? Or did they let you attend pending the government loan? Do you have (or can gather) the means to pay the school for THIS one term?
  21. I still say, pay the OC. Then afterwards, have the OC withdraw the account from the CA. Then dispute the CA's TLs with the CRA.
  22. Did plaintiff serve you with a copy of the motion to dismiss?
  23. The way I read his post, he's trying to get a government backed student loan, but has negative TL on his CR ... which he did not describe what it was (whether another loan, or a CC, or something else) other than sold by OC to JDB. He did mention he had other loans, but no indication the other loans were student loans or car loans or whatever. He didn't connect the negative TL to any of those loans. But I agree. If he has a past student loan debt, they can generally force payment in full on those.
  24. If the OC sold it to JDB, their TL should list a balance of zero (or be gone). What does the OC TL have? Normally we do not recommend paying a JDB unless there is something essential about it. You may be in that case seeking a government backed student loan. If you make a payment plan and start paying, your will definitely reset it to zero years, and the TL will reflect you owing (and presumably paying) on the payment plan you agreed to. If you get the loan settled (paid in part) and reported as settled (paid not in full), is that enough for you to get the government backed student loan? Or are they expecting you to have it paid in full. The JDB does not have any authority to tell the OC what to do. At best they can make such a suggestion. In practice, a JDB care only about getting as much money as they can, and will do whatever it takes to maximize what they can get from you. They will negotiate in bad faith right from the beginning. Once they know you have a goal that requires a debt they hold to be paid, they will try to get as much of it as they can. So do not give them any hint why you are considering paying this. I would start by just disputing it with the CRA as "not mine" and see if they simply fail to validate it back to the CRA. You might get lucky. If you tell us the name of the JDB, OC, and the approximate amount (pick a nearby number within 15% of the amount), we might be able to give you more information about your chance of success in various efforts. Also, the name of the specific CRA if only one or two are involved could help. The alternative is to just buckle down, get two jobs, and earn enough to start school at some balance between amount you can work and amount you can pay for with what job you keep. Your debt is, or is just about, past SOL in Texas, so you may not have to deal with a legal case by putting this off.
×
×
  • Create New...