Jump to content

AT&T is STILL the Devil!


JustaTexan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay so I've been going through it with AT&T and their crappy collection company, "Collection Company of America." (CCA)

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290999 (history)

I have disputed several times with the big 3 and TU and EX keep coming back verified. I filed a BBB claim against them the BBB closed it because the company wasn't willing to cooperate. The BBB recommended that I file a complaint with the AG of their state.

About a month ago, I sent an email to an email address I found on the web that is supposed to be the CEO of AT&T. Didn't really expect much from it and was surprised when I received numerous phone calls and emails from a lady in the AT&T executive office, for consumer appeals. So immediately she credits me for my modem charge from years ago....lol. So that was nice because I have carried around a chip on my shoulder for AT&T because I had to pay for something that I returned! :twisted: She tells me that another part of my grand total is a $200 AT&T mobile early termination fee, (again-not valid-my 2 year contract was up), and that somebody from their department will be contacting me. Well, it's been a couple weeks and they haven't. I've tried to contact this supposed nice lady numerous times these few weeks to find out how my case is progressing and if they have pulled it back from CCA yet and I'm feeling avoided.

Then, when pulling my credit report this morning, I see CCA has updated the account for March to reflect the credit for the modem charge. WTF?

I read on this board somewhere that there is some law or perhaps caselaw that shows that an OC can be held liable for a CA's actions. Anybody know where this information is at or if it is valid?

Thanks alot guys-I really really appreciate it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so I've been going through it with AT&T and their crappy collection company, "Collection Company of America." (CCA)

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290999

I have disputed several times with the big 3 and TU and EX keep coming back verified. I filed a BBB claim against them the BBB closed it because the company wasn't willing to cooperate. The BBB recommended that I file a complaint with the AG of their state.

About a month ago, I sent an email to an email address I found on the web that is supposed to be the CEO of AT&T. Didn't really expect much from it and was surprised when I received numerous phone calls and emails from a lady in the AT&T executive office, for consumer appeals. So immediately she credits me for my modem charge from years ago....lol. So that was nice because I have carried around a chip on my shoulder for AT&T because I had to pay for something that I returned! :twisted: She tells me that another part of my grand total is a $200 AT&T mobile early termination fee, (again-not valid-my 2 year contract was up), and that somebody from their department will be contacting me. Well, it's been a couple weeks and they haven't. I've tried to contact this supposed nice lady numerous times these few weeks to find out how my case is progressing and if they have pulled it back from CCA yet and I'm feeling avoided.

Then, when pulling my credit report this morning, I see CCA has updated the account for March to reflect the credit for the modem charge. WTF?

I read on this board somewhere that there is some law or perhaps caselaw that shows that an OC can be held liable for a CA's actions. Anybody know where this information is at or if it is valid?

Thanks alot guys-I really really appreciate it!

Actually, I think it's a rather basic concept in the law that one party can be held liable for the actions of that party's "agent"...a CA acting with the creditor's consent would certainly fall under that basic concept IMAHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think it's a rather basic concept in the law that one party can be held liable for the actions of that party's "agent"...a CA acting with the creditor's consent would certainly fall under that basic concept IMAHO.

Really?

When I have a little bit of free time then, I will be typing up a very long list of CCA's violations under the FDCPA, FCRA, and TFC to send to both AT&T and CCA.

Do you believe that in their first and only response to my BBB complaint that they quoted the wrong section of the TFC trying to prove a point and they referred to me by "Mr." I am not a man!

When I pointed out these things in my reply to the BBB, CCA closed off contact and I'm sure my case contributed to their already awful BBB report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

When I have a little bit of free time then, I will be typing up a very long list of CCA's violations under the FDCPA, FCRA, and TFC to send to both AT&T and CCA.

Do you believe that in their first and only response to my BBB complaint that they quoted the wrong section of the TFC trying to prove a point and they referred to me by "Mr." I am not a man!

When I pointed out these things in my reply to the BBB, CCA closed off contact and I'm sure my case contributed to their already awful BBB report.

Keep in mind that Federal law my supersede that concept - for example, the FDCPA limits the penalty to $1,000 per action and I believe you have to sue the actual CA, not the OC. Now, if there are provable damages then you might be able to sue both.

Keep in mind that I"m not an attorney nor have I ever played one on stage or screen and I only rarely stay in Holiday Inn Express motels. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if there are provable damages then you might be able to sue both.

As in letters from Penfed declining my auto refinance because of the presence of this collection account on my credit? Or perhaps Penney's declining my CLI request because of the presence of this collection account?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in letters from Penfed declining my auto refinance because of the presence of this collection account on my credit? Or perhaps Penney's declining my CLI request because of the presence of this collection account?

Thanks!

Perhaps, if you can attach a dollar amount of damages to those actions.

Making you "mad" is hard to put a dollar figure on (in fact I might pay to see that if I could watch from a safe distance). :)

Making you pay a 1% higher interest rate on a 30 year mortgage because of their action is easy to compute a $$$ figure for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, if you can attach a dollar amount of damages to those actions.

Making you "mad" is hard to put a dollar figure on (in fact I might pay to see that if I could watch from a safe distance). :)

Making you pay a 1% higher interest rate on a 30 year mortgage because of their action is easy to compute a $$$ figure for.

Okay I get it. Thanks! :)

Anybody have an opinion on whether or not them updating my EX report for March with a new incorrect amount is another violation I can add to the list? They still have not responded to the DV request I sent them in 2008 and they keep verifying with TU and EX when I dispute. For some reason on my EQ, it was deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egads Deanna.

Still the devil. What jerks.

Well I personally don't think an incorrect update is legal, but I don't have case law to go by. Maybe someone else does?

Anyway, keep it up. When I finally decided to nail att..I couldn't find the old (they were ancient when I found this board) bills, so I had no proof of what they had done when I got rid of them...so being the scrapper that I am..........I want to see you get em! My mess was re a switch to SWB or from SWB to ATT. Was charged for 2 months I didn't even have their service. z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your coa needs to be rephrased. You have a right to have info reported accurately to the CRAs.

The info was inaccurate, so the CA is liable to you for reporting wrong info under FCRA and failing to correct it after disputing with the CRAs. I would go as far as charging with separate FCRA violations every time your credit report was disclosed to a third party and an adverse action was taken and every time the CA updated the info to reflect a new wrong balance. The CA will try to blame AT&T for giving them the wrong info, but the law is clear and the DF is liable to you. If they think they are entitled to recover from AT&T they need to sue them.

You can also sue the CA under FDCPA.

Under TFC, AT&T had a responsibility to investigate your dispute and correct the info, even if they are not reporting to the CRAs, they should have communicated the CA the right amount. So AT&T is liable to you for any damages resulting from their failure to investigate and correct the information they passed on to the CA.

So AT&T shuld be liable to you for an amount equal to whatever damages you get from the CA. Maybe you can request the court for treble damages by turning your TFC claim into DTPA.

My logic may be faulty. I know you can't recover twice for the same set of facts from one defendant, but I think it's ok to hold each party liable for their part on this.

Btw, did the CA ever mark the account in dispute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, did the CA ever mark the account in dispute?

Yes they do have marked it in dispute. It's about the only "by the book" thing they are doing. :roll: Thanks for all of the information! I'm going to have to read it more thoroughly tomorrow when I'm not all goofed up on Pina Coladas and up way past my bedtime. Boy am I going to pay for being up this late tomorrow!

I really appreciate the responses guys! :)++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...