Sign in to follow this  
techgoddess

The law in Cali.

Recommended Posts

<blockquote>Originally posted by cookiemnster

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

Yes, but I believe in CALIF, OC are bound by FDCPA AND ROSENTHAL ACT, so they can't even collect their own debt, or deny me service????????

Is that right!!

</blockquote>

No, not quite.

They're not supposed to attempt collection on the debt, but again, they don't have to extend you new credit or service and give you the opportunity to stiff them again. There's nothing in law or caselaw that suggests this is so. Collecting and the extension of new credit or service are two very different things.

Discover, Sears, and American Express have what we call "Blacklists". This means that, if you ever filed bankruptcy and included them, they will never again extend you credit -not even enough to buy a cup of coffee. They can't collect on the original debts because they are prohibited from doing so by the automatic stay put in effect at the time of filing, but they don't have to, and won't, give you another chance to default.

Same principle with the phone company. As far as I know, now that they're de-regulated, there's nothing that says that they have to give you service. Only that if they deny you service it can't be based upon your race, creed, age, sex, etc.

There may be hope, though, if you can somehow find out how long the phone company keeps its records for. If, say, computer records are purged after 4 years, and paper records after 7, you may have a chance. You just never really know. All I'm trying to point out is that it's not a given that they'll give you service after 4 years and 1 month.

</blockquote>

I here you, I don't have to pay, but I probably won't get service.

I don't think they lost the paper work, American Agencies, just verified, but if ask for a DV letter now they just might dig everything up!!!!

... I think somebody had a simular situation with a library card(lol)

Well, maybe I could use it as a bargaining chip.

But, that's cool, even if you pay a CA, the SOL is determined the date you default with the OC. ???????RIGHT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by techgoddess

Excuse me while I do the happy dance!

:D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D :upsidown: :D

</blockquote>

Hey, I'm happpy for you!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by techgoddess

No wonder the CA that RMA hired never answered my DV letter!

</blockquote>

RMA hired a collection agency? OMG, ROFLMAO. A CA hires a CA. I think it's hysterical when that happens.

I had a Sherman Acquisitions entry on my CR with OSI listed as the OC. Ummm............ OK. Like I'd open an account with a CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADSOFT, yes. The last payment to the OC sets the SOL. Even if that payment doesn't bring you current.

And, since American Agencies is a CA, the odds of them being able to dig up the paperwork this far out are actually pretty slim. Has AA bought the debt from SBC/PacBell, or was it assigned? I ask because in many cases, when a debt is bought, it's in the sale contract that they can't contact the OC regarding the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what do you do if you want to get a negitive TL, off your CR that is beyond "legal status of any debt" via FDCPA for your state, you don't want to pay otherwise the 7yrs on your CR will start again!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by cookiemnster

ADSOFT, yes. The last payment to the OC sets the SOL. Even if that payment doesn't bring you current.

And, since American Agencies is a CA, the odds of them being able to dig up the paperwork this far out are actually pretty slim. Has AA bought the debt from SBC/PacBell, or was it assigned? I ask because in many cases, when a debt is bought, it's in the sale contract that they can't contact the OC regarding the debt.

</blockquote>

I don't know what the status, I've been doing my homework before I DV them. I also called pacbell, I know all they have to do is request that the records be printed out.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "they can't contact the original creditor", I don't think they bought it, but frankly, I don't know how all that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

So, what do you do if you want to get a negitive TL, off your CR that is beyond "legal status of any debt" via FDCPA for your state, you don't want to pay otherwise the 7yrs on your CR will start again!!!

</blockquote>

First of all, paying on the debt won't re-start the 7 years over again.

FTC Amason letter

2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or © the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs?

No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff.

What have you done so far to get this off of your report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

I don't know what the status, I've been doing my homework before I DV them. I also called pacbell, I know all they have to do is request that the records be printed out.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "they can't contact the original creditor", I don't think they bought it, but frankly, I don't know how all that works.

</blockquote>

What I meant by that was this: in some cases, when a collection agency purchases a debt, there is sometimes a clause in the contract (the contract outlining the terms of the sale of the debts) that the CA cannot contact the OC regarding the debt. Meaning that they cannot, by the terms of their contract, request validation documents from the OC. And remember, all validation has to come from the OC and be passed on to you by the CA. This isn't in all contracts, but it's in some.

How long til the 4 years is up? It's getting close, but how close?

It might be harder than just printing out the records. What if the phone company only keeps records in their databases for 3 years? If they would have to research the account and actually go to some warehouse and pull paper copies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, it can stay on your report 7yrs + 180 days????

... All I did get it off was dispute, I came back verified!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

So, basically, it can stay on your report 7yrs + 180 days????

... All I did get it off was dispute, I came back verified!!!!

</blockquote>

YAY! You get it! Yes, 7 years, 180 days although I've noticed on my own reports the CRA's are forgetting about that 180 days. But legally, they don't have to.

OK, so you disputed it. Again, how far from the 4 years are you? Do you know?

So now you send a DV letter to American. Are they reporting, or just PacBell, or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by cookiemnster

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

So, basically, it can stay on your report 7yrs + 180 days????

... All I did get it off was dispute, I came back verified!!!!

</blockquote>

YAY! You get it! Yes, 7 years, 180 days although I've noticed on my own reports the CRA's are forgetting about that 180 days. But legally, they don't have to.

OK, so you disputed it. Again, how far from the 4 years are you? Do you know?

So now you send a DV letter to American. Are they reporting, or just PacBell, or both?

</blockquote>

About a year to a year + 1/2.

I have a game plan to bring the debt down and make them pay, but maybe I should just let it ride out and go with somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm trying to figure out my best angle. Should I send a standard DV or immediately go

for the throat by telling them that they're attempting to collect on a time-barred debt and if

they don't remove it from my CR I'll sue them so fast it'll make their head spin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone critique my letter?

RMA

4450 River Green Pkwy

Duluth, GA 30096-2589

Re: Acct. #: SEARS-1311* and SEARS-1320*

To Whom It May Concern:

According to the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Guide DC-2,

"Summary of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Statutes" Article 2.6, it is unlawful to collect any

debt which is too old to be enforcable. The last payment made to the original creditor (Sears)

was in September, 1998. Because the California Statute of Limitations on an open-ended

account is four years, the debt became unenforcable as of September, 2002. Because

reporting a debt is considered an attempt to collect, please remove your listing from any

credit bureau reports you have reported it to. I'm aware that payments made to the original

creditor reset the Statute of Limitations. However, because you are a third party collector, the

Statute of Limitations has not been reset, regardless of any payments I might have made.

I'm sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could put your

company in serious legal trouble with the FTC, The Better Business Bureau and the California

Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Techgoddess

[Edit by techgoddess on Thursday, June 5, 2003 @ 06:27 PM]

[Edit by techgoddess on Thursday, June 5, 2003 @ 06:28 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Techgoddess,

I would wait and bounce this off SWEDE and Cookiemonster, You might have to reference the SOL for california to prove the enforability of the contract!!

But I could be wrong!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

Techgoddess,

I would wait and bounce this off SWEDE and Cookiemonster, You might have to reference the SOL for california to prove the enforability of the contract!!

But I could be wrong!!!

</blockquote>

Bummping for COOKIEMONSTER, SWEDE, SENIORS

I have two time-barred debts myself!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be wearing my invisibility hat, today. <removes hat, shakes out hair> That's better. Can you see me now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I see you ;)

I have to run out for a while, but I'll read and critique when I get back this afternoon, unless Swede catches it first :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by techgoddess

I'm aware that payments made to the original

creditor reset the Statute of Limitations. However, because you are a third party collector, the

Statute of Limitations has not been reset, regardless of any payments I might have made.

</blockquote>

I would delete the language quoted above. Also, it might be better to replace the first clause of the letter with "Under California law, "

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by calawyer

<blockquote>Originally posted by techgoddess

I'm aware that payments made to the original

creditor reset the Statute of Limitations. However, because you are a third party collector, the

Statute of Limitations has not been reset, regardless of any payments I might have made.

</blockquote>

I would delete the language quoted above. Also, it might be better to replace the first clause of the letter with "Under California law, "

Good luck.

</blockquote>

Thanks, Calawyer!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this