Igor Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Looks like this NC bill takes affect on October 1st. Some interesting things in this bill.http://www.collectorsexposed.com/forum2/index.php?topic=254.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueq Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 That may be stronger consumer law than WI!Especially the clear definition of "verification"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtorshusband Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the text of the bill, but I don't get this:"SB 974 deems it an unfair practice for a debt buyer or collection agency on behalf of a debt buyer to bring suit, initiate arbitration, or otherwise attempt to collect a debt when the debt buyer or agency knows or reasonably should know such collection is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.ACA International understands this requirement only prohibits debt buyers and debt collectors collecting on behalf of debt buyers from filing suit or initiating arbitration in an attempt to collect a time-barred debt. Collection efforts such as sending letters and placing telephone calls to consumers are not prohibited as applicable statutes of limitation do not bar such collection activity."The first section I put in boldface seems very broad, but the ACA seems to think the bill only limits seeking legal remedies.Then this:"In addition, this provision does not apply to traditional third-party debt collectors collecting debt for the original creditor."When the first paragraph says "The bill incorporates a debt buyer under the definition of a collection agency..." Sounds like it's adding debt buyers to the definition of "collection agency", not re-defining "collection agency" as "debt buyers only".DH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ualbany18 Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) "...If the claim is based on credit card debt and no written signed agreement is available, the debt buyer must provide evidence the credit card was used..."That seems pretty creditor friendly, debt buyers do not have to produce a signed agreement between the OC and debtor. Just prove the card was used (statements should be efficient). Edited September 9, 2009 by ualbany18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 "...If the claim is based on credit card debt and no written signed agreement is available, the debt buyer must provide evidence the credit card was used..."That seems pretty creditor friendly, debt buyers do not have to produce a signed agreement between the OC and debtor. Just prove the card was used (statements should be efficient).That's pretty much what we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newryman Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Not really there is more than one line out of context in the bill. It is good stuff when read in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascar Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 but the ACA seems to think the bill only limits seeking legal remedies.The ACA spin is always collector-biased. It has been prohibited in North Carolina for quite a long time to seek collection of time-barred debts. This should be nothing new to the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts