Jump to content

HSBC Questions/Concerns


hulagirl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looking to see if anyone might have some insight on these issues:

Received letter from CA which I will be disputing. This is the fourth CA to send me a letter (first three were in 08/09). It appears they were all collecting for the same JDB although only the first and third indicated who the owner was. I sent DV's and all three went away. Later in 09 another CA called multiple times (left VM's - I didn't speak to them). Never received anything in writing so I don't know who owned it at that point. Early last year a half dozen calls from a new CA (VM's all saying exact same script) with no communication after that . Going back thru my notes it is the same company that just sent me a letter (first one and nothing in it about having 30 days to dispute either :roll:) making a settlement offer so they have been sitting on it for a year and half so far.

My question is if sued does the chain of custody have to show all the CA's it's been thru or just OC to new owner(s). I don't know who owns it currently but I will be asking in my DV as the letter doesn't say. Obviously it's been in a lot of hands but don't know how many times it's actually been sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking to see if anyone might have some insight on these issues:

Received letter from CA which I will be disputing. This is the fourth CA to send me a letter (first three were in 08/09). It appears they were all collecting for the same JDB although only the first and third indicated who the owner was. I sent DV's and all three went away. Later in 09 another CA called multiple times (left VM's - I didn't speak to them). Never received anything in writing so I don't know who owned it at that point. Early last year a half dozen calls from a new CA (VM's all saying exact same script) with no communication after that . Going back thru my notes it is the same company that just sent me a letter (first one and nothing in it about having 30 days to dispute either :roll:) making a settlement offer so they have been sitting on it for a year and half so far.

My question is if sued does the chain of custody have to show all the CA's it's been thru or just OC to new owner(s). I don't know who owns it currently but I will be asking in my DV as the letter doesn't say. Obviously it's been in a lot of hands but don't know how many times it's actually been sold.

The possible reason the letter did not include the 30 day dispute notice is because they've had the account for over a year and tried to contact you by phone. Also, they'd argue that this is not the first letter they sent. It would be difficult for you to prove otherwise.

Since they could claim the letter is not their first communication with you, you can DV, but they don't have to respond. They'll claim that 30 day window is closed.

You can DV, and they may respond with the basic information: name of the OC and the amount. You can request the chain of ownership in a DV, but they're not required to provide it under FDCPA guidelines.

If the debt is outside the SOL, I'd send a C & D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not outside SOL. I'm not asking them for chain of ownership in DV, just current owner. I just want to know as far as if were sued I would obviously be looking into chain of ownership as it has been thru so many CA's but I don't know how many different owners and don't know if they have to show all the CA's it was placed with while being under a specific owner or just provide proof of sale from OC to new owner(s). Hope that clarifies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either one, sold or assigned Each and Every time, chain of custody may not be broken at any time "along the way" IF they cannot provide such evidence (and chances are near certain they cannot) then they can never prove standing to sue...... IMO

Think of it like this, They have dragged you into court, saying you owe THEM $ HOW does the court know they have the right to collect any $ from You unless they can show from OC to THEM? (they can't know) Otherwise "I" (as an example) could just sue someone for some alleged debt and say I now own all the rights to said debt... Plaintiffs have much burden to prove their case, Defendants must learn what these are (IMO)

Obviously this needs to be argued/ included in answer and or AD (amend if need be)

Edited by hopefulscambeater.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if they have to show the CA's assigned that should be fun. Onto to my next question.

In regards to this being a HSBC account, it was originally D Merch but everything now says HSBC (which I believe they acquired them). I have read where HSBC uses a 4 year SOL state in their cardmember agreement but wanted to know if (a) it applies to me as I'm fairly certain it was not HSBC when acct closed and (B) if anyone has looked or found case law for Michigan showing a court here has accepted another state's SOL per a cardmember agreement. I have looked high and low online and can't find anything for Michigan regarding choice of law being used in credit card lawsuits, just Florida & Wisconsin. I'm trying to get all my ducks in a row in case so any info would be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After studying these boards and hundreds of Internet sites over the last 3 almost 4 months, I still could not ascertain that if an alleged debt was assigned to a collection agency by the OC, then given back to the OC, who then sold it, was the collection agency part of the chain of assignment.

That is why I am so glad the question was asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO "try" to simplify it, the OC either sells or assigns all the rights that goes with the debt, they assign to "CA A" who does not collect, OC obtains it again, then assigns to "CA B" who call constantly the wrong telephone # never getting anywhere, OC gets it back and decides to sell it to "JDB A" who has wrong telephone number as before, they give up sell it to "JDB B" (THIS may go on for some time and then SOL is close to expiring so last JDB decides to sue hoping for an easy default judgment.........IF the chain of custody is not clearly kept intact then the JDB suing may not (and probably does not) have ANY legal rights to collect- In at least most states (if not all) they'd also have to prove exactly to the penny how ALL fees were calculated (and by whom) in other words these are the legal reasons why most JDB are not willing to go to trial against informed individuals, the lawyers already KNOW this, they hope none of us do IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...