Jump to content

Worldwide ASSett Purchasing Troubles


Recommended Posts

I requested DV from Worldwide Assett Purchasing as well as their collection attorney Gerald Moore (out of Marietta Georgia) last month. Today I got something back in the mail from Gerald Moore. It contained a total of two pieces of paper. One paper was a letter that stated Validation was enclosed, and that 'Collection Activity will now continue on this account.'

It contained one other piece of paper that showed this:

Name Of Card Holder: (my hubby's name)

SSN: (hubby's social security number)

Creditor Information:

Original Creditor: MBNA America Bank, N.A.

Account was purchased by Worldwide Assett Purchasing, LLC on November 28, 2003

Current Owner Of Account: Woldwide Assett Purchasing, LLC

Address Of Owner: 2253 Northwest Parkway, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA. 30067

Account Information:

Date Account Opened: November 2, 2000

Date Account Charged Off: November 28, 2003 Amount: $4,125.06

Date Of Last Payment To MBNA America Bank, N.A. March 24, 2003 Amount $366.00

Date Of Last Payment To Worldwide Assett Purchasing: NA Amount: NA

This is not proper validation is it? Since they didn't include proof showing they have a right to collect on this debt, they also didn't include a copy of the agreement in force when this account was opened, copies of the monthly statements, or how they reached the amount they are trying to collect from me (they are trying to collect $5,162.61 which is over $1,000 more than what they supposedly bought the account for a year or so ago!)

How should I respond to this letter, and the incomplete lack of DV they sent? They didn't actually send me anything from the OC. This letter is hand signed by 'Ruth Hurt, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Assett Purchasing'. I realize this person can't POSSIBLY have any 'Original Knowledge' of this debt, even if she is the 'Vice President of Worldwide Assett Purchasing'. They are also already calling me and leaving messages on my answering machine again.

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That aint validation! I'd advise them that their validation attempt was lacking and incomplete. That isnt' a complete payment history, original signed agreement, etc...

They are just trying to flout the law.

I'd just tell them that what they sent you wasn't even an attempt at validation, and if they desire to contact you again, they'd better validate first.

I'd send that and then start logging the calls and letters for violations.

One thing to add, I wouldn't tell them what you require for validation, but rather I'd just tell them what they sent was not even an attempt at validation and leave it at that.

Don't tell them how to do their jobs. If they don't know then they need to learn the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've got a letter ready to go, but wanted you guys to critique it first. One question I have, is that if I am not specific about what I want from them for Validation, then it might work against me. As stated in Coppola vs. Arrow Financial, it says:

"Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff’s debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.”

Here's my letter below. It's kind of long. Any ideas on what I could cut out without losing the 'rigid-uncompromising-I-aint-playing-games-with-you-attitude' I'm trying to give it?

------------------------

Date: March 10, 2005

our name

our address

our town state and zip

Gerald E Moore & Associates, PC

P.O. Box 672257

Marietta, GA. 30006

Re: Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC successor in interest to MBNA America Bank, N.A.

Re: Account #: xxxxxxxx

Amount Of Claim: $5,1xx.xx

GEMA No: xxxxxxxxx

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is being sent to you in response to a letter sent from your law firm on March 1, 2005. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (B) that your claim is disputed and PROPER AND COMPLETE validation is requested.

In your letter you claim to enclose a form that supposedly fulfilled your obligation for validation a debt. Your validation attempt was totally lacking and incomplete in every way. What you sent wasn't even an attempt at validation, and if you desire to contact me again, you need to validate your claim first. The paper you sent did not include the proper documents needed such as complete payment history, original signed agreement, just to list a few of the proper requirements, that is required for complete Debt Validation. The fact that this shows it was signed by Ruth Hurt who, according to the paper you sent, is the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Asset Purchasing LLC means nothing. She does not have personal knowledge of this alleged debt from the original creditor as is required by the FDCPA.

As stated in Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704 (D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002)

“Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff’s debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.”

With that said, I am specifically requesting:

The source of the alleged debt;

The amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiffs alleged debt;

The ORIGINAL contract which shows whether the debt can be sold or assigned;

How amount sought was calculated on alleged debt;

A complete and total payment history on the account showing all credits, debits, charges etc. that have been posted to the account;

Where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus regarding this alleged debt;

Documents conferring authority on defendant to collect alleged debt;

Any other information that they may have in connection with this account;

This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your office provide me with complete and proper Debt Validation. Regarding the validation, please do not quote US Federal Court 4th Circuit Chaudhry v Gallerizzo case law as it is definitively NOT applicable in this situation. I am clearly requesting proper VALIDATION of the alleged debt, which requires you to contact the original creditor and get all the proper information from them and forward that to me as proper “VALIDATION”

At this time I will also inform you that your client Worldwide Asset Purchasing has failed to report to the 3 major credit reporting agencies that this debt is currently being disputed, as required by law. The law states that a debt collector must either Validate the debt, or stop any continued debt collection activity, as well as report to the CRA that this debt is disputed. Since you have not, as of yet, fulfilled any validation I have requested, both your company, as well as Worldwide Asset Management are in violation of my rights under the FDCPA. Your client is now in violation of giving invalidated information to the 3 major Credit Bureau’s (Equifax, Experian or TransUnion) by not listing this account in dispute with them. These actions may be considered fraud under both Federal and State Laws. Due to this fact, I now reserve the right to file claims for the violations listed below, as well as any others, if you or Worldwide Asset Purchasing fails to provide either complete validation as is my right, or stops any collection activity until you do provide proper validation.

Violations:

Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

(4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed.

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

Section 807(8) Prohibits "communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed." If a debt collector knows that a debt is disputed by the consumer, either from receipt of written notice (section 809) or other means, and reports it to a credit bureau, he must report it as disputed.

If your office fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of the original receipt (February 25th, 2004), all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

I would strongly advise that you make sure your records are in order and up to date, before I am forced to take legal action in Federal Court in Montgomery Alabama. I assure you, that if I feel I have no other alternative but to pay the $250 filing fee for Federal Court, that I will indeed list both Gerald E Moore and Associates, as well as Ruth Hurt, and Worldwide Asset Purchasing as parties who have willfully violated my rights under the FDCPA, FCRA, as well as the Alabama Consumer Protection Laws

Respectfully,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paper was a letter that stated Validation was enclosed, and that 'Collection Activity will now continue on this account.'

You need to find a reason to dispute the debt again.

It contained one other piece of paper that showed this:

Name Of Card Holder: (my hubby's name)

SSN: (hubby's social security number)

Creditor Information:

Original Creditor: MBNA America Bank, N.A.

Account was purchased by Worldwide Assett Purchasing, LLC on November 28, 2003

Current Owner Of Account: Woldwide Assett Purchasing, LLC

Address Of Owner: 2253 Northwest Parkway, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA. 30067

Account Information:

Date Account Opened: November 2, 2000

Date Account Charged Off: November 28, 2003 Amount: $4,125.06

Date Of Last Payment To MBNA America Bank, N.A. March 24, 2003 Amount $366.00

Date Of Last Payment To Worldwide Assett Purchasing: NA Amount: NA

This is not proper validation is it?

Yes. You sent a DV letter to Dennis Moore. Under the plain language meaning of the statute, Moore is then required to contact the creditor, in this case Planetwide Asset Purchasing and obtain verification. He did. Moore is then required to mail the verfication to you. He did. So he has complied with statute. Because Planetwide Asset Purchasing sent him the requested verification, Moore has demonstrated that he has the authority to collect the debt. Moore can know claim bona fide error in relying on the representations of Planetwide Asset Purchasing because according to them, the debt has not been paid. The only issue left is that your husband is not the correct debtor, which does not appear to be the case.

Since they didn't include proof showing they have a right to collect on this debt,

The fact that Planetwide Asset sent verification to Moore is suffient to prove he has the right to collect.

they also didn't include a copy of the agreement in force when this account was opened,

The FDCPA does not require that they include a copy of the agreement. "Verification," a term that was not defined by congress, is left to statutes of the various states, case law and the interpretation of the courts.

copies of the monthly statements,

There's no requirement in the FDCPA for that. Consider yourself lucky since a copy of a billing statement allows them to automatically sue under the theory of account stated, which sometimes has a longer SOL than a regular credit card debt.

or how they reached the amount they are trying to collect from me (they are trying to collect $5,162.61 which is over $1,000 more than what they supposedly bought the account for a year or so ago!)

They are allowed, at least in theory, to charge pre-judgment interest and the rate will depend on your state's laws or whether they can prove a contract, and a billing statement would allow them to do exactly that as quasi-affirmation.

How should I respond to this letter, and the incomplete lack of DV they sent? They didn't actually send me anything from the OC.

The FDCPA says "creditor." It does not, unfortunately, say "original creditor." When they sue that is something you can bring up in court but I doubt that a state judge would give a

This letter is hand signed by 'Ruth Hurt, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Assett Purchasing'. I realize this person can't POSSIBLY have any 'Original Knowledge' of this debt, even if she is the 'Vice President of Worldwide Assett Purchasing'. They are also already calling me and leaving messages on my answering machine again.

You're right about that. That is something you can bring up too. It's called hearsay.

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

You could send a DV disputing the interest and how it was calculated. Was interest added from the date of charge-off or from the time they purchased the debt, what is the interest rate and under what authority or premise are they charging interest?

Coppola v Arrow. That's for discovery. Since you are not engaging in discovery it isn't applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paper was a letter that stated Validation was enclosed, and that 'Collection Activity will now continue on this account.'

You need to find a reason to dispute the debt again.

It contained one other piece of paper that showed this:

Name Of Card Holder: (my hubby's name)

SSN: (hubby's social security number)

Creditor Information:

Original Creditor: MBNA America Bank, N.A.

Account was purchased by Worldwide Assett Purchasing, LLC on November 28, 2003

Current Owner Of Account: Woldwide Assett Purchasing, LLC

Address Of Owner: 2253 Northwest Parkway, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA. 30067

Account Information:

Date Account Opened: November 2, 2000

Date Account Charged Off: November 28, 2003 Amount: $4,125.06

Date Of Last Payment To MBNA America Bank, N.A. March 24, 2003 Amount $366.00

Date Of Last Payment To Worldwide Assett Purchasing: NA Amount: NA

This is not proper validation is it?

Yes. You sent a DV letter to Dennis Moore. Under the plain language meaning of the statute, Moore is then required to contact the creditor, in this case Planetwide Asset Purchasing and obtain verification. He did. Moore is then required to mail the verfication to you. He did. So he has complied with statute. Because Planetwide Asset Purchasing sent him the requested verification, Moore has demonstrated that he has the authority to collect the debt. Moore can know claim bona fide error in relying on the representations of Planetwide Asset Purchasing because according to them, the debt has not been paid. The only issue left is that your husband is not the correct debtor, which does not appear to be the case.

Since they didn't include proof showing they have a right to collect on this debt,

The fact that Planetwide Asset sent verification to Moore is suffient to prove he has the right to collect.

they also didn't include a copy of the agreement in force when this account was opened,

The FDCPA does not require that they include a copy of the agreement. "Verification," a term that was not defined by congress, is left to statutes of the various states, case law and the interpretation of the courts.

copies of the monthly statements,

There's no requirement in the FDCPA for that. Consider yourself lucky since a copy of a billing statement allows them to automatically sue under the theory of account stated, which sometimes has a longer SOL than a regular credit card debt.

or how they reached the amount they are trying to collect from me (they are trying to collect $5,162.61 which is over $1,000 more than what they supposedly bought the account for a year or so ago!)

They are allowed, at least in theory, to charge pre-judgment interest and the rate will depend on your state's laws or whether they can prove a contract, and a billing statement would allow them to do exactly that as quasi-affirmation.

How should I respond to this letter, and the incomplete lack of DV they sent? They didn't actually send me anything from the OC.

The FDCPA says "creditor." It does not, unfortunately, say "original creditor." When they sue that is something you can bring up in court but I doubt that a state judge would give a

This letter is hand signed by 'Ruth Hurt, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Assett Purchasing'. I realize this person can't POSSIBLY have any 'Original Knowledge' of this debt, even if she is the 'Vice President of Worldwide Assett Purchasing'. They are also already calling me and leaving messages on my answering machine again.

You're right about that. That is something you can bring up too. It's called hearsay.

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

You could send a DV disputing the interest and how it was calculated. Was interest added from the date of charge-off or from the time they purchased the debt, what is the interest rate and under what authority or premise are they charging interest?

Coppola v Arrow. That's for discovery. Since you are not engaging in discovery it isn't applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOTAL BS GHA... total BS

They cannot just send regurgitated numbers to a consumer and say this is our proof. They havent even proved that they purchased the debt.

How about I send you a letter in the mail telling you that you owe me 10k.. You request validation and I tell you.. well I bought this debt from Capital One and they say its yours and they say you owe this and this is when you defaulted and this is what the amount was.

Now you are telling me that I have validated the debt to you huh?

No way!!!! I call foul!!!

They must PROVE they have a legal right to collect the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Fields v Wilber Law Firm (7th Cir 2004):

debt collectors must still clearly and fairly communicate information about

the amount of the debt to debtors. This includes how the

total amount due was determined if the demand for payment

includes add-on expenses like attorneys’ fees or

collection costs.

Then goes on to say:

It is unfair to consumers under the FDCPA to hide the true character of the debt, thereby impairing their ability to knowledgeably assess the validity of the debt. One simple way to comply with § 1692e and § 1692f in this regard would be to itemize the various charges that comprise the total amount of the debt.

Or Johnson v. Revenue Mgmt. Corp., (7th Cir. 1999)

“Unsophisticated readers may require more explanation than do federal judges; what seems pellucid to a judge, a legally sophisticated reader, may be opaque to someone whose formal education ended after sixth grade.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. You sent a DV letter to Dennis Moore. Under the plain language meaning of the statute, Moore is then required to contact the creditor, in this case Planetwide Asset Purchasing and obtain verification. He did. Moore is then required to mail the verfication to you. He did. So he has complied with statute. Because Planetwide Asset Purchasing sent him the requested verification, Moore has demonstrated that he has the authority to collect the debt. Moore can now claim bona fide error in relying on the representations of Planetwide Asset Purchasing because according to them, the debt has not been paid. The only issue left is that your husband is not the correct debtor, which does not appear to be the case.

Actually, Gerald Moore DID NOT CONTACT the CREDITOR, (and therefore he has not complied with the law) since ASSett is NOT the creditor, but rather the debt collector. He (as a lawyer specializing in consumer debt) should know this law, and the difference between those two terms. If he does not, then he should perhaps go back to law school and learn the basics again. Gerald Moore (not Dennis) must have contacted ASSett Management Purchasing (not Planetwide Asett Purchasing), and they then sent a paper from themselves stating the debt was supposedly valid. None of the information I received was from the Original Creditor. Therefore, Moore has purposely NOT complied with the laws of the FDCPA.

Actually, according to the FDCPA Staff Opinion Letter: LeFevre-Wollman, the Documents MUST be from the original creditor, and mailed by the DEBT COLLECTOR. This is in regards to the type of verification needed to prove the debt. This is directly from this letter:

"The statute requires that the DEBT COLLECTOR obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer. Because of one of the principal purposes of this section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector, or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained DIRECTLY from the CREDITOR. As stated above, the statute requires the DEBT COLLECTOR, NOT THE CREDITOR, to mail the verification to the consumer.

For any argument on whether someone is a debt collector, or a creditor, please refer to the FDCPA, subsection 803 (4) and (6)

The fact that Planetwide Asset sent verification to Moore is sufficient to prove he has the right to collect.

I don't know about that, since a$$ett still hasn't proven that they have a right to collect on this debt, and ASSett Purchasing can't confirm that THEY have the right to collect on a debt, just by writing something on a piece of paper, and saying basically "There, we said we have the right to collect." (figuratively speaking.) ASSett still hasn't sent me any valid proof that THEY have any legal right to collect on this debt, nor have they provided debt validation on this debt. I sent them a certified letter back in February, that they themselves must also respond to.

They are allowed, at least in theory, to charge pre-judgment interest and the rate will depend on your state's laws or whether they can prove a contract, and a billing statement would allow them to do exactly that as quasi-affirmation.

Actually, no, they are not allowed to just make up any amount they want, and add any kind of fees they want. They can 'request' this from the judge, once in court to have the interest added to the original amount. (btw, for Alabama it is 12% on judgements) This is shown in the FDCPA, subsection 807 (2) where it states "A debt collector may not use false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt. which includes: (2a) The Character, amount, or legal status of any debt."

How should I respond to this letter, and the incomplete lack of DV they sent? They didn't actually send me anything from the OC.
The FDCPA says "creditor." It does not, unfortunately, say "original creditor." When they sue that is something you can bring up in court but I doubt that a state judge..

No, the FDCPA doesn't say 'original creditor.' It uses two completely different terms, 'creditor' and 'debt collector', and goes on to explain the difference between the two. Since ASSett clearly falls under the description of a 'debt collector', this shouldn't even be an issue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.