Jump to content

Dunning letter from Michael J. Scott for Cap 1


Recommended Posts

Today I received a dunning letter from Michael J. Scott for a Cap 1 account. The letter states that they represent Capital One, N.A. The OC is listed as Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. However, it says the "unpaid amount is owed to" Capital One, N.A. My understanding is that these are two separate entities who are affiliates.

Has anyone run across this situation with a Cap 1 account? Does it mean that Cap 1 USA, the OC, assigned or sold the debt to its affiliate Cap 1, which would mean that the debt is no longer owned by the OC thereby making Cap 1 a debt collector subject to the FDCPA?

Edited by dvintexas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I received a dunning letter from Michael J. Scott for a Cap 1 account. The letter states that they represent Capital One, N.A. The OC is listed as Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. However, it says the "unpaid amount is owed to" Capital One, N.A. My understanding is that these are two separate entities who are affiliates.

Has anyone run across this situation with a Cap 1 account? Does it mean that Cap 1 USA, the OC, assigned or sold the debt to its affiliate Cap 1, which would mean that the debt is no longer owned by the OC thereby making Cap 1 a debt collector subject to the FDCPA?

I doubt Cap1 USA sold the debt to it's affiliate. It could be that payments simply go to Cap 1 N.A. For instance, Discover Card's payments are handled by DFS Services which is part of Discover Bank.

According to the FDCPA, a debt collector is one who collects debts for someone else. Cap1 N.A. and Cap 1 USA are all part of Capital One. Therefore, I don't think Cap1 N.A. would be considered a collector under the FDCPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter from the attorney clearly makes a distinction between owner and original creditor. In the re: portion of the letter he lists the "OC" as Cap 1 USA and the party that the "unpaid account is owed to" as Cap 1. In the body of the letter he states that the owner and holder of the account is Cap 1. That indicates to me that the OC is no longer the owner of the account and that now it is owned by its affiliate.

One area I do have knowledge in is corporate transactions. Companies do transfer debt between affiliates. That's why I think it's important to pin down what a transfer to an affiliate means with regard to an affiliate's standing for collection purposes and whether the affiliate, as an assignee, would be subject to the FDCPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're reading way too much into this...

Cap1 hired this lawyer to collect on the debt. The law firm does not own the debt...they are just the "hired help" to get you to make payment.

Cap1 is also litigious too...so for them it's 1 stop shopping. If the collection efforts fail, the lawyer sues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do realize that the lawyer was hired by Cap 1 and that makes him a debt collector. But what I'm trying to determine is whether or not an original creditor's affiliate who is shown as the owner of the debt is a considered a debt collector subject to the FDCPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fairly new development... I am aware that Cap1 formed an LLC called Capital One Services to handle the credit card collections.

In my opinion (and I am no lawyer), a separate entity, like an LLC, should subject them to the FDCPA...after all, they are legally separate from the the original creditor - just happen to share the same name. I have a feeling that this will probably end up in court somewhere down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap 1 USA and Cap 1 are defninitely two separate entities, both federally chartered and regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency.

Unless there is some regulation or statute that treats affiliates of the OC as the OC then it would appear that Cap 1 should be considered a debt buyer and not an OC. If the attorney ends up filing suit I will be interested to see how this is dealt with in the petition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap 1 USA and Cap 1 are defninitely two separate entities, both federally chartered and regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency.

Unless there is some regulation or statute that treats affiliates of the OC as the OC then it would appear that Cap 1 should be considered a debt buyer and not an OC. If the attorney ends up filing suit I will be interested to see how this is dealt with in the petition.

If it were me, I'd contact an attorney (consumer? corporate?) just to ask those specific questions. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are being sued by Cap 1 and would love to have such a defense on their side.

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.