why aren't oc responbile for ca

[agn140]

if a ca is collecting for an oc and they have contracted and not bought the acct outright why couldn't they be brought into a cause of action against a ca for violations of FDCPA.

Aren't employers responsible for the actions of employees that are violating the law when working on something that has caused the violation of that law.

[DocDon]

The OC's are responsible for the actions of their contracted help.... in repossessions.

I'm looking for cases where this is true outside of repossessions, but as it stands, the OC is no longer "free and clear" from the actions of the people they contract to carry out their dirty work, and I believe it's only a matter of time before the OC/CA relationship is unbreakable across the board.

[agn140]

If a consumer were already bringing a suit against a ca that has not bought the debt but has just cotracted to collect, do you think including the oc would otherwise jeopardize the suit. or would the court just rule that the oc couldn't be included as a defendant and the suit would continue.

[adminppdotcom]

If a consumer were already bringing a suit against a ca that has not bought the debt but has just cotracted to collect, do you think including the oc would otherwise jeopardize the suit. or would the court just rule that the oc couldn't be included as a defendant and the suit would continue.

In order for the original creditor to be liable in most cases, they have to play an active role in the day to day collection actions of the debt collector.

You can list the original creditor as a def, they can always file a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement to get out of it.

But with any case, make sure you research BOTH sides of the debate, not what you are up against.

[DocDon]

I don't know the answer to that. If you think about it, one attorney would have had to have been the first to name an OC as a co-defendant in a case brought against their contracted agents (CA) in a repo.

It may be time to bring that across to the "unsecured transaction" side of the equation and start holding the OC's liable for their hired CA's behavior. It'll sure make them think twice about hiring a low-bid scuzzbag CA.

[agn140]

I may be stating this in a very simplified way,however,considerthis. I happen to own a company. I sell maint supplies to commercial accts. One of their employees gets hurt using the product. I get sued and the distributer I bought it from gets sued. ,the manufacturer that the distributer bouhgt the product from gets sued.Now you may argue that this is differant because product liability cases are a differant animal. So how about the case of a general contracter getting sued for something he contracted out to a subcontracter. he doesn't necessarrily have day to day involvement with the sub as to how he runs his business.

I think there is culpability at the top of the food chain for what somebody does that has contracted to do this in someone elses name.

If a ca hasn't bought the debt are they going after you because they picked your name from a lucky lottery list.

I think it's just that nobody has tested this.

I don't believe that the oc not having responsibility in day to day ops as you stated necessarily shiels them from liability.

If that were the case then all you would have to do if you were any company in any field would be to hire someone else with an existing business that you have nothing to do and let them conduct business in any shady manner that they wanted and you claim ignorance of their business practices.

Doesn't wash to me. Please show me something to the contrary.

[DocDon]

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying I haven't come across a case yet outside of a repossession where this was brought up. That's all.

[agn140]

Doc, I really wasn't reacting to your post.I thought your post kind of mimicked my feelings which are why not

My post really was in response to admin's post.

[DocDon]

Oh. I didn't see that. I didn't think you'd get that angry over what I posted.

I'm not sure where he's getting that from, because there are tons of cases where the OC is held liable along with the CA in repos... just can't find one for unsecured debt...(ie: credit cards).

[agn140]

Doc, maybe that when a ca has commited violations and the debtor has it documented and sues them and wins money and or deletion for the most part they are satisfied. Could be as you say that people just haven't gone after them.

If they were so shielded from this I would imagine you would see court precedents for that outcome or certainly have heard more stories from people on this board.

I don't mean to be judgemental, so please don't take it that way,however, my observations from the posts I have read from adminpp seem to follow along the lines that if matters aren't pursued according to his methods then he doesn't really give them a positive endorsement.

If you think my interpretation is off then I stand corrected. I just see that path being followed in the posts that I have read from adminpp

[DocDon]

At least you only have to notice. I have to deal with them in the flood of PM's from members who are now "confused"....

*to others reading* That's not saying you should stop PM'ing myself or any other member.

[agn140]

i think you do a great job and I think whatever works for people should certainly be considered ,investigated and researched by members of this board.It does bother me if someone follows the philosophy that it's either my way or the highway.I like to read all the posts that I think might be helpful in relation to my situations and them kind of disect them and of course mimick the ways that are proven sucessful.I'm just not seeing a flood of the more knowledgeable people doing things the way adminpp says they must be done.I don't want anyone to think I am attacking him and this is any sort of vendetta. I don't know him or her froma hole in the wall, however,I do think you are doing a disservice to people that look to this board for advice and still think that just because something is written then it must be so.

Not everyone has the ability or the wherewithall to research things and they believe if soembody wrote it down it must be gospel.

Sort of like how good these good old pharmaceutical companies lie to us about the safety of their drugs.They wrote it was safe.

I 'm sorry getting off on a tangent.

Hey everyone have a good w/e and be well.

[DocDon]

We welcome and encourage debate and discussion. A lot of the strategies we suggest came from input of many members finding information from many different sources.

The majority of our suggestions come from first-hand, personal experiences. Most of the topics, I'm sure you noticed, are what other members experienced with regard to a question, what they did, and what the outcome was.

That's what this site is all about.

I hope any newer member reading this understands that, and doesn't let the technical legal rantings scare them off... think of it as being for the "advanced class".