Is Servicing Corp. to OC a debt collector

[isd]

Found this intresting. The lawsuit is Discover Bank c/o DB Serv. Corp. (who is the subsidiary servicing corp. for Discover). So are they both the Plaintiff?

This is a letter from the an employee of the FTC (I inserted DB SERV AND DISC for a better understanding I think:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1993 (which I incorporate by reference), concerning whether a company that provides servicing and collection assistance(DB SERV) to a creditor(DISC) on the creditor's premises in the name of the creditor (Bob, Inc.) (DISC.) is a "debt collector" under Section 803(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We cannot answer your question definitively without more information. However, we can provide the following:

1) While it appears possible that persons provided by Bob, Inc.(DB SERV.) to its creditor clients(DISC.) become de facto employees of the clients(DISC.) while they are working there, it appears that Bob, Inc.(DB SERV) is still an independent contractor engaged in the collection business. It is Bob, Inc.(DB SERV.), not the persons whom Bob, Inc.(DB SERV.) supplies, that is apparently paid by creditor clients (DISC.) for their collection work. The exemption in Section 803(6)(A) of the Act applies only to "officers or employees of a creditor". Bob, Inc. (DB SERV.) itself does not appear to be an employee of its clients although the persons Bob, Inc.(DB SERV.) supplies may be while they are working there. Thus, if Bob, Inc. (DB SERV.) otherwise falls within the definition of debt collector in Section 803(6), it still appears to be covered by the Act.

2) It is also possible that Bob, Inc.(DB SERV.) and its employees are operating as "servicing organizations" whose activities concern debts which were not in default when obtained. Section 803(6)(F)(iii) exempts such parties from the coverage of the Act. The key word is "default"; whether the debts at issue are delinquent or in default is a question of fact.

3) Finally, the answer to your question depends upon the other aspects of Bob, Inc's (DB SERV) business and whether these aspects involve debt collection activities. If they do, Bob, Inc. (DB SERV.) would definitely be a "debt collector"; if they do not, then Bob, Inc.'s (DB SERV.)status would depend upon its relationship with its creditor clients.

So wouldn't they be a debt collector AND Plaintiff?

Would it be better to use the FDCPA violations or Hearsay? Can't use both they are contradictory.

In Discovery, they stated they supervise and monitor, train and dicipline these employees. I forgot to ask who pays the actual employees dand it!

Any thoughts anyone?

[isd]

( any person while acting as a debt collector for

another person, both of whom are related by com-

mon ownership or affiliated by corporate control,

if the person acting as a debt collector does so only

for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and

if the principal business of such person is not the

collection of debts;

They also said that DB SERV CORP performs marketing, accounting and collections.

[BV80]

If DB Servicing is a subsidiary of Discover and only performs services for Discover, then DB is not an independant contractor, and Discover Bank is not a client.

If Discover Bank and DB servicing "are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control", and if DB only collects for Discover, then it appears DB would not be a debt collector under the definition of the FDCPA. In addition, DB performs other services...not just debt collection.