Jump to content

Any action or success stopping the "ring around the consumer" repeated assignment?


par
 Share

Recommended Posts

Have you seen when you dispute a debt the collection agency never furnishes you validation nor verification, but sends you a letter that they sent it back to current creditor. Then a few weeks later you get a new collection letter from a different CA. Then the process keeps going around alike to "ring around" games.

Anyone been able to stop this nasty merry go around? Any law against such?

How do you handle it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any law against such?

Come-On,

Why would there be a law against a creditor

trying to collect on a legal debt?

If someone owed you money, would you want any restriction to collect it?

besides, there are State laws and its the SOL.

The way to handle is is like razr said, keep DV'ing it.

and I would add,

try to get them on violations by recording your calls. (if you talk to them, which isn't usually recommended but it is the easiest way to get them to violate the FDCPA)

When you send your DV, inform them that your calls are recorded because in Cali you need both parties to agree,

so you need to give them notice of recorded calls to make it admissable (spelling) into court.

Also,

You have to ask yourself, why can't they validate it? If everytime your DV it gets kicked back to the OC, there has to be an reason they are not validating. Perhaps they are on contingency and the OC doesn't release such info? or the OC doesn't have the records anymore?

It would be worth a call to the OC to do so digging around to see if they still have your records.

I would call repeatedly if I didn't get the answers I wanted, but that's me :-)

Good Luck

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courts are split on the issue, with them leaning towards it not being a violation.

My argument used to be that your dispute is imputed to successive debt collectors. And whether or not the creditor actually told the successive CA (or JDB told the successive JDB), its information they knew or should've known.

Therefore attempting to collect is a violation right out of the gate.

Courts have also held that debtors only get ONE 30 day dispute period. IE, if you don't dispute the first time, even if you get a 30 day notice from another CA, the 30 days had already expired.

So you could make the inference that if you only get one chance to dispute, the dispute must attach to that debt. To say otherwise would fly in the face of the intent of the FDCPA. It would be a loophole that would erode one of your protections.

Anyway, it's not a cut and dry issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a case where a creditor was found vicariously liable for the actions of a subsequent collector when they failed to pass on to each successive collector that the debt had been disputed and that validation had not been provided.

I'll see if I can find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kimber v. Federal Fin. Corp.

Creditor held liable for actions of hired attorney where hired attorney violated the FDCPA.

In this case I would argue that the creditor, by failing to provide record of past dispute by the consumer to each subsequent collector, facilitates violation of section 809(B), 807(10), 807(2), 807(8), and possibly 807(12).

Since the FDCPA is a strict liability law, the collector does not have to intend to violate the law, the act of doing so is all the consumer must prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kimber v. Federal Fin. Corp.

Creditor held liable for actions of hired attorney where hired attorney violated the FDCPA.

In this case I would argue that the creditor, by failing to provide record of past dispute by the consumer to each subsequent collector, facilitates violation of section 809(B), 807(10), 807(2), 807(8), and possibly 807(12).

That's good to know! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kimber v. Federal Fin. Corp.

Yes, that's the one that deals with attorneys.

Check out Scally v. Hilco Receivables, LLC.,392 F.Supp.2d 1036 (N.D.,Ill. 2006), then Schutz v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC., 465 F.Supp.2d 872 (N.D.Ill., 2006) for a pretty good discussion on how that theory relates to third party debt collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the one that deals with attorneys.

Check out Scally v. Hilco Receivables, LLC.,392 F.Supp.2d 1036 (N.D.,Ill. 2006), then Schutz v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC., 465 F.Supp.2d 872 (N.D.Ill., 2006) for a pretty good discussion on how that theory relates to third party debt collectors.

Oh, Hilco, my favorite. I just kicked them in the ding ding and got a delete. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got into a small arguement with one of the Moderators over at CB--where he seemed to think that if you DV a CA regarding a debt, they must notify others CA that the debt is in dipute

Here is a sample:

QUOTE(Hopelesscred @ Jul 8 2007, 02:39 PM)

"but for the second CA I would also include verbiage informing them of their violations, and the violations of the previous CA(s) "

OK ....here is a scenario....u have an alleged debt of 5k, that you are disputing. CA1 sends u a dunning letter, you DV them. They decide that its not worth the hassle and return the TL to the OC. The OC CO's the account and sells it to a JBD. The JDB sends u a new dunning letter. U send them a response that they are in violation of 807(8)...which carries a hefty fine of 1k. They answer the DV with some proof u answer back that it is not enough..they now list the TL as "disputed" and proceed with a lawsuit.

I am not going to argue against using every weapon in the FCRA and FDCPA arsenal as long it is used with common sense and with the proper Debt verification and validation methods. Trying get a 1k violation on a 5-10K debt is silly, u can win AND lose big. Same goes for a small debt (under $300) with a CA when a simple PFD will do.

Yes I am a newbie here but I've been lurking on this board and active on another. I started this journey on June 5 and so far I have 9 deletions. A combination of PFD, DV, disputes with CRAs and I am now working on second part of 1-2 punches and ITS letters

This is from your own link....

And think first!

Poking the lion with a stick sometimes irritates the lion.....

If you are not past the SOL for lawsuits, and you are not able to quickly settle the account if necessary- or prove that it is not yours-

you may find validation attached to a sumons. Not fun.

My goal here is not to get into a silly debate, I am still learning but I don't want a newbie to get a false sense of security when in fact they maybe subject a lawsuit if the debt is still within SOL

The first CA MUST inform the OC that the debt is in dispute... <=======HUH????

of COURSE they're liable to be sued...

but is it more likely to be sued if they DV them? I say it's not...and I really can't see a CA going in front of a jduge saying "Well Your Honor, we know that he wanted proof, and we had every reason to believe that he'd pay it if we DID prove it, but we felt that we wanted to go to court instead."

but let's go with that scenario

CA2 provides you with bogus validation (as they all do)

the consumer exercises their rights and says "HEy...what's this handwritten note from you saying"We say you owe, so pay up"? That's not validation."

the CA then sues you

they go to court...you file counterclaims for FDCPA violations, as well as state consumer protection laws

you also go for sanctions againt them for wasting your time and the courts

you ask for dismissal based upon the doctrine of unclean hands....and it's granted...as is your motion for sanctions

OR...you can be Joe Consumer and just ignore the letters for fear of being sued for something the CA likely can't prove to a kitten, much less a judge...

OR...you can continually DV and be ignored for months and months

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and this is statute that was being discussed

QUOTE(Hopelesscred @ Jul 8 2007, 12:56 PM)

807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e]

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(8) 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. CA1 is under no obligation to inform CA2 or any subsequent CA thereafter that a debt is in dispute. They can simply decide that it is not worth the trouble and pass it along to a more fiesty CA or even an attny. If the debt is within SOL and for a large sum, u maybe sued. In fact they can STILL pursue collection on a debt out of SOL, they just cannot sue and WIN (provided u answer )

I have two CRAP 1 accounts....CA1 called for one, DV...CA1 goes away. CA2 calls for the other account...I DV ...CA2 goes away ..CRAP 1 can decide to either sue or send another CA, then the process starts all over again. I cant emphasize enough that DV is always your first step, and definitely with a CMRRR.

Moderators' answer:

really? Where do you read that? if you read the above portion you quoted, specifically (8), it says that they MUST inform the subsequent CAs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain states require that as well. A look at Florida's debt collection statute shows that this is a violation:

(6) Disclose information concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the debtor without disclosing that fact. If a disclosure is made prior to such reasonable dispute having been asserted and written notice is received from the debtor that any part of the debt is disputed and if such dispute is reasonable, the person who made the original disclosure shall reveal upon the request of the debtor within 30 days the details of the dispute to each person to whom disclosure of the debt without notice of the dispute was made within the preceding 90 days;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would also be a violation of section 807(2) which prohibits false representation of the character or legal status of the alleged debt. If they return or sell the paper to another party under the premise that it is undisputed and collectable when it has been disputed then they violate this provision of law.

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.