Jump to content

Collection Agency in CA. I am in TX., their response to my complaint (Nana C ?)


gretchenann50
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a CA attenpting to collect on a Zombie Debt, they are in CA and I am in TX. They are also not bonded and registered with our Secretary of State. They have refused to provide me with any kind of documentation, bills, verification of any kind. The last time I requested this was 10/17, on 11/23 i contacted them and informed them that I had not received any of the requested proof that I owe the debt, to which the young man said,"Well, we just barely got it yesterday, I'll send it today.

I had been disputing this since September, each time it came back as verified and updated- there is no way it could have been verified because they had no docs.

I notified the CA's of this, I also complained to the CA Attorney General's Office about them-

Today I received a copy of their response which says that

A: they are not required to comply with Texas requirements as they are in Ca. and collecting on a Ca. resident- I AM NOT a Ca. resident

B: they sent me validation of the debt by sending me itemized statement on November 20- as of today 12/04 I have still received nothing from them

C: they quote the FCRA, that the debt shall remain for 7 years

 

where do I go from here ? I have not reported thwem to my Secretary of State YET- I may want to sue them- what next ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report them - I do that with all unlicensed CAs that contact me... I also throw in the part about it being a Class 6 Misdemeanor and up to 6 months in jail - I always tell them it's Tent City... I rarely hear from the smart ones, I hear more from the dumb ones.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youi will see how fast they will delete it from your credit and close your files, when you file a complaint with the appropiate state office. After that sue them under the FDCPA, since trying to collect without a licence in your state is an automatic FDCPA violation, and see how fast they will want to settle your claim. Document everything, record phone calls, etc, so you can show them all thier violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they try to collect in your state they have to comply with your state laws, regardless of whatever they do in thier home state. If they don't comply with a licence for example, you should inmidiatly file a complaint with the appropiate state office (for Florida would be Florida Office of Financial Regulations), for TX you'll need to see where, and go from there. After that, you sue them for an FDCPA violation trying to collect without a licence is an automatic violation, and for sure you will find some FCRA violation, add harrasment if they call on the phone, since they are not suppose to collect, and damages, cause you feel thretened by the calls and also I think you are now depress with all this, put all that on a paper and RUN don't walk to your nearest Federal Court, and file. Then collect ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said you've been disputing this since September, each time it came back as verified and updated.

 

Are they trying to collect from you, or are they merely reporting on your credit report?   They are not required to be licensed in your state to report to the credit reporting agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do have, cause putting the collection on your CR is attempting to collect.

 

It's a violation of:

 

 

 

Not having a state licence is a violation of the FDCPA, specifically FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692(f) A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

 

Coltfun words, some time ago.

 

 

I do not have any case law but putting it on your CR without having a licence, is an attempt to collect a debt out of state, and the FDCPA applies, and so it's a violation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do have, cause putting the collection on your CR is attempting to collect.

 

It's a violation of:

 

 

 

I do not have any case law but putting it on your CR without having a licence, is an attempt to collect a debt out of state, and the FDCPA applies, and so it's a violation.

 

Your credit report is not governed by your state.  If your state requires a license for an out of state CA to collect, but the CA doesn't have one, that would be an FDCPA violation because, by sending you a letter, they attempted an action they couldn't legally attempt within your state.  Debt collection licensing is for the purpose of controlling the CAs actions within your state.

 

States have no control over your credit report or the credit reporting agencies.   Yes, credit reporting is an attempt to collect a debt under certain circumstances, but it's not an attempt to collect a debt within your state.   It's not the same thing as sending you a collection letter to your home in your state.

 

If you find case law that says otherwise, great.  But so far, I haven't found any.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi BV80, the CA did BOTH, after disputing the entry they sent me a bill to my home in Texas and upped the amount, they also continued to report without validating, never did send validation although they claimed they did. I called the Texas Secretary of State office and told the appropriate person what was going on and that they stated that they do not have to follow Texas statutes, she replied that yes they do if they want to collect on a person in Texas, she then sent the CA a letter stating that. She also advised me to file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General, which I did. The Federal Trade Commission also states that even reporting it on your Credit Report is considered attempting to collect a debt and is a violation. They also sent me a bill after I advised them that they are attempting to collect on a Zombie Debt. I don't know much about this stuff, but it appears to me that there are violations here- I would be happy to pay it, if they could provide me proof of what they say I owe, and for what, but so far they refuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi BV80, the CA did BOTH, after disputing the entry they sent me a bill to my home in Texas and upped the amount, they also continued to report without validating, never did send validation although they claimed they did. I called the Texas Secretary of State office and told the appropriate person what was going on and that they stated that they do not have to follow Texas statutes, she replied that yes they do if they want to collect on a person in Texas, she then sent the CA a letter stating that. She also advised me to file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General, which I did. The Federal Trade Commission also states that even reporting it on your Credit Report is considered attempting to collect a debt and is a violation. They also sent me a bill after I advised them that they are attempting to collect on a Zombie Debt. I don't know much about this stuff, but it appears to me that there are violations here- I would be happy to pay it, if they could provide me proof of what they say I owe, and for what, but so far they refuse.

 

You live in TX now which has a four year SOL. If you have been there for awhile, then TX should allow the use of the four year SOL, thus, they have to abide by that. I've pulled up a few things I have on TX law. Some of it you might be able to use, if not, then someone else.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Texas Debt Collection Laws

Here is an easy violation to catch the CA’s on in Texas:

Quote:

 

392.202. Correction of Third-Party Debt Collector's or Credit Bureau's Files

(a) An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item in a third-party debt collector's or credit bureau's file on the individual may notify in writing the third-party debt collector or credit bureau of the inaccuracy. The third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall provide forms for the notice and, when requested, assist an individual in preparing the notice.

So this law puts the CA on the hook at anytime you send them a letter disputing the info they have on file. Unlike the Federal FDCPA, which only puts them on the hook once they send the "initial communication" letter. And even then, doesn’t require them to actually respond to the dispute.

And then the next section has the actual time limit imposed.

Quote:

 

392.202. Correction of Third-Party Debt Collector's or Credit Bureau's Files

(B) Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall send a written statement to the individual:

(1) denying the inaccuracy;

(2) admitting the inaccuracy; or

(3) stating that the third-party debt collector or credit bureau has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exempt income:

If your only income is exempt, you should add the following paragraph to the letter you send:

"Moreover, my only source of income is exempt from collection. I have no income or assets

that can be lawfully collected for an enforceable claim or debt. This letter serves as notice of

the fact that I do not have any assets or income that are subject to collection under the law.

In the event this debt is sold, this letter shall be included in my file to ensure that the buyer

is put on notice of the same. If you or any subsequent holder of this debt attempts to attach

exempt funds in order to collect this debt, you will be subject to wrongful attachment

litigation."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas style DV letter:

IF the underlying debt is 4 years old OR older, they cannot collect via a lawsuit.

They can try to collect on this forever - but cannot use the Courts of Texas to do it.

If it were me, not only would I poke the bear - I would pour gas on it and light a fire cracker.

Midland is well known for failing to validate in Texas and violating consumer rights.

Write out a TEXAS style DV.

Mine go something like this:

your address

acct number xxxxx

To whom it may concern,

I received a (letter, reviewed my credit reports etc) on xx day for an alleged debt you say I owe.

I am a resident of Texas

I demand validation under the Texas Finance Code 392.

All calls to my home or work are inconvenient.

Any prior express consent to call my cell phone is now REVOKED.

You have 30 days to validate OR remove the derogatory trade lines per my demand.

Any alleged debts possibly owed would be considered time-barred.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

PRINTED NAME HERE.

You can leave out the SOL defense and let them prove to you that it is time barred. Also place a call to the TXSOS to see if they are current on their franchise taxes, and IF they're bond is current, and the name they are collecting under is also registered as an "alias"

Sent the letter CMRRR

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FREE Sample Expired Statute of Limitations Notification Letter

Today's Date

Your Name

Your Address

Collector's Name

Collector's Address

RE: [insert account number or name of account or name of debt]:

Dear [insert collector's name or company name],

This letter is in response to your [letter dated xx-xx-2005] (copy enclosed) or [phone call on xx-xx-2005], concerning the collection of the above referenced [account or date].

I do not believe I owe what you say I owe therefore I dispute this debt. I am well aware of my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (fdcpa) and my state laws so I hope to save both of us a great deal of time by letting you know that not only do I dispute the validity of this debt, I have also checked with my State Attorney General and verified that the Statute of Limitations for enforcing this type of debt through the courts in (insert your state or the state in which the contract was signed) has expired. Therefore, should you decide to pursue this matter in court I intend to inform the court of my dispute of this debt and that the "statute of limitations" has expired.

This letter is your formal notification that I consider this matter closed and demand that you, or anyone affiliated with your company, stop contacting me regarding this or any other matter except to advise me that your debt collection efforts are being terminated or that you or the creditor are taking specific actions allowed by the FDCPA or my state laws.

Be advised that I consider any contact not in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act a serious violation of the law and will immediately report any violations to my State Attorney General, to the Federal Trade Commission and, if necessary, take whatever legal action is necessary to protect myself. Be advised that I tape record all phone calls and violations of the FDCPA can result in you or your company being personally fined up to $1,000 per incident.

(Sign above name)

Printed Name

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi BV80, the CA did BOTH, after disputing the entry they sent me a bill to my home in Texas and upped the amount, they also continued to report without validating, never did send validation although they claimed they did. I called the Texas Secretary of State office and told the appropriate person what was going on and that they stated that they do not have to follow Texas statutes, she replied that yes they do if they want to collect on a person in Texas, she then sent the CA a letter stating that. She also advised me to file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General, which I did. The Federal Trade Commission also states that even reporting it on your Credit Report is considered attempting to collect a debt and is a violation. They also sent me a bill after I advised them that they are attempting to collect on a Zombie Debt. I don't know much about this stuff, but it appears to me that there are violations here- I would be happy to pay it, if they could provide me proof of what they say I owe, and for what, but so far they refuse.

 

I didn't say they don't have to follow TX law to try to collect from you.  I stated that they're not required to be bonded in TX in order to report on your credit report.  Yes, reporting on your CR is a collection attempt under certain circumstances, but that's under the FDCPA.  It has nothing to do with the right to report at all.  The right of a debt collector to report on your CR is under the FCRA.  The FCRA mentions nothing about debt collectors and bonding or licensing.

 

The FTC letter to which you refer has to do with a specific circumstance.  It's says nothing about a CA not being able to report at all under certain circumstances.  In addition, FTC opinion letters are not binding on courts.

 

Where does the TX code state that a CA must be bonded in TX in order to report on your CR?  I'm not talking about credit reporting being a collection effort.  I'm talking about the right to report period. 

 

In addition, they verifed with the CRAs.  That's all they're required to do.  Just because they didn't send the proof you wanted doesn't mean they violated.   If you don't believe they can prove they own the debt, that's one thing.  However, they don't have to provide proof of ownership just because you disputed.  There is no law that states such a thing.

 

If you want to challenge their ownership and right to report, that may take a lawsuit on your part.  But as far as reporting on your credit report, you'd have to show that they must be bonded in order to report on your CR, and that the TDCPA preempts/overrides the FCRA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, you are aware of Texas Finance code392 (TFC392) It is one of the best helps that a Texan can have. I will post it here for you incase you don't have it, and, to help out other Texans that may not be aware of it. While I am at it, check TFC-392.202, TX SC, BCC17 and TFC 392.404. They may or may not apply to you, but may to others:						

FINANCE CODE

 

TITLE 5. PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

CHAPTER 392. DEBT COLLECTION

 

 

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

 

Sec. 392.001.  DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1)  "Consumer" means an individual who has a consumer debt.

(2)  "Consumer debt" means an obligation, or an alleged obligation, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and arising from a transaction or alleged transaction.

(3)  "Creditor" means a party, other than a consumer, to a transaction or alleged transaction involving one or more consumers.

(4)  "Credit bureau" means a person who, for compensation, gathers, records, and disseminates information relating to the creditworthiness, financial responsibility, and paying habits of, and similar information regarding, a person for the purpose of furnishing that information to another person.

(5)  "Debt collection" means an action, conduct, or practice in collecting, or in soliciting for collection, consumer debts that are due or alleged to be due a creditor.

(6)  "Debt collector" means a person who directly or indirectly engages in debt collection and includes a person who sells or offers to sell forms represented to be a collection system, device, or scheme intended to be used to collect consumer debts.

(7)  "Third-party debt collector" means a debt collector, as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6), but does not include an attorney collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client unless the attorney has nonattorney employees who:

(A)  are regularly engaged to solicit debts for collection; or

( B)  regularly make contact with debtors for the purpose of collection or adjustment of debts.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 7.42, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

 

SUBCHAPTER B. SURETY BOND

 

 

Sec. 392.101.  BOND REQUIREMENT. (a) A third-party debt collector or credit bureau may not engage in debt collection unless the third-party debt collector or credit bureau has obtained a surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to do business in this state as prescribed by this section. A copy of the bond must be filed with the secretary of state.

( B)  The bond must be in favor of:

(1)  any person who is damaged by a violation of this chapter; and

(2)  this state for the benefit of any person who is damaged by a violation of this chapter.

©  The bond must be in the amount of $10,000.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.102.  CLAIM AGAINST BOND. A person who claims against a bond for a violation of this chapter may maintain an action against the third-party debt collector or credit bureau and against the surety. The aggregate liability of the surety to all persons damaged by a violation of this chapter may not exceed the amount of the bond.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

SUBCHAPTER C. INFORMATION IN FILES OF CREDIT BUREAU OR DEBT COLLECTOR

 

 

Sec. 392.201.  REPORT TO CONSUMER. Not later than the 45th day after the date of the request, a credit bureau shall provide to a person in its registry a copy of all information contained in its files concerning that person.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.202.  CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES. (a) An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item that is in a third-party debt collector's or credit bureau's file on the individual and that relates to a debt being collected by the third-party debt collector may notify in writing the third-party debt collector of the inaccuracy. The third-party debt collector shall make a written record of the dispute. If the third-party debt collector does not report information related to the dispute to a credit bureau, the third-party debt collector shall cease collection efforts until an investigation of the dispute described by Subsections ( B)-(e) determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any. If the third-party debt collector reports information related to the dispute to a credit bureau, the reporting third-party debt collector shall initiate an investigation of the dispute described by Subsections ( B)-(e) and shall cease collection efforts until the investigation determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any. This section does not affect the application of Chapter 20, Business & Commerce Code, to a third-party debt collector subject to that chapter.

( B)  Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, a third-party debt collector who initiates an investigation shall send a written statement to the individual:

(1)  denying the inaccuracy;

(2)  admitting the inaccuracy; or

(3)  stating that the third-party debt collector has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy.

©  If the third-party debt collector admits that the item is inaccurate under Subsection ( B), the third-party debt collector shall:

(1)  not later than the fifth business day after the date of the admission, correct the item in the relevant file; and

(2)  immediately cease collection efforts related to the portion of the debt that was found to be inaccurate and on correction of the item send, to each person who has previously received a report from the third-party debt collector containing the inaccurate information, notice of the inaccuracy and a copy of an accurate report.

(d)  If the third-party debt collector states that there has not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the third-party debt collector shall immediately:

(1)  change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual;

(2)  send to each person who previously received the report containing the information a notice that is equivalent to a notice under Subsection © and a copy of the changed report; and

(3)  cease collection efforts.

(e)  On completion by the third-party debt collector of the investigation, the third-party debt collector shall inform the individual of the determination of whether the item is accurate or inaccurate. If the third-party debt collector determines that the information was accurate, the third-party debt collector may again report that information and resume collection efforts.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 851, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

 

SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITED DEBT COLLECTION METHODS

 

 

Sec. 392.301.  THREATS OR COERCION. (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not use threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce that employ any of the following practices:

(1)  using or threatening to use violence or other criminal means to cause harm to a person or property of a person;

(2)  accusing falsely or threatening to accuse falsely a person of fraud or any other crime;

(3)  representing or threatening to represent to any person other than the consumer that a consumer is wilfully refusing to pay a nondisputed consumer debt when the debt is in dispute and the consumer has notified in writing the debt collector of the dispute;

(4)  threatening to sell or assign to another the obligation of the consumer and falsely representing that the result of the sale or assignment would be that the consumer would lose a defense to the consumer debt or would be subject to illegal collection attempts;

(5)  threatening that the debtor will be arrested for nonpayment of a consumer debt without proper court proceedings;

(6)  threatening to file a charge, complaint, or criminal action against a debtor when the debtor has not violated a criminal law;

(7)  threatening that nonpayment of a consumer debt will result in the seizure, repossession, or sale of the person's property without proper court proceedings; or

(8)  threatening to take an action prohibited by law.

( B)  Subsection (a) does not prevent a debt collector from:

(1)  informing a debtor that the debtor may be arrested after proper court proceedings if the debtor has violated a criminal law of this state;

(2)  threatening to institute civil lawsuits or other judicial proceedings to collect a consumer debt; or

(3)  exercising or threatening to exercise a statutory or contractual right of seizure, repossession, or sale that does not require court proceedings.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.302.  HARASSMENT; ABUSE. In debt collection, a debt collector may not oppress, harass, or abuse a person by:

(1)  using profane or obscene language or language intended to abuse unreasonably the hearer or reader;

(2)  placing telephone calls without disclosing the name of the individual making the call and with the intent to annoy, harass, or threaten a person at the called number;

(3)  causing a person to incur a long distance telephone toll, telegram fee, or other charge by a medium of communication without first disclosing the name of the person making the communication; or

(4)  causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or making repeated or continuous telephone calls, with the intent to harass a person at the called number.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.303.  UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS. (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means that employ the following practices:

(1)  seeking or obtaining a written statement or acknowledgment in any form that specifies that a consumer's obligation is one incurred for necessaries of life if the obligation was not incurred for those necessaries;

(2)  collecting or attempting to collect interest or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to the obligation unless the interest or incidental charge, fee, or expense is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to the consumer; or

(3)  collecting or attempting to collect an obligation under a check, draft, debit payment, or credit card payment, if:

(A)  the check or draft was dishonored or the debit payment or credit card payment was refused because the check or draft was not drawn or the payment was not made by a person authorized to use the applicable account;

( B)  the debt collector has received written notice from a person authorized to use the account that the check, draft, or payment was unauthorized; and

©  the person authorized to use the account has filed a report concerning the unauthorized check, draft, or payment with a law enforcement agency, as defined by Article 59.01, Code of Criminal Procedure, and has provided the debt collector with a copy of the report.

( B)  Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a creditor may charge a reasonable reinstatement fee as consideration for renewal of a real property loan or contract of sale, after default, if the additional fee is included in a written contract executed at the time of renewal.

©  Subsection (a)(3) does not prohibit a debt collector from collecting or attempting to collect an obligation under a check, draft, debit payment, or credit card payment if the debt collector has credible evidence, including a document, video recording, or witness statement, that the report filed with a law enforcement agency, as required by Subsection (a)(3)©, is fraudulent and that the check, draft, or payment was authorized.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 505, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

 

Sec. 392.304.  FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the following practices:

(1)  using a name other than the:

(A)  true business or professional name or the true personal or legal name of the debt collector while engaged in debt collection; or

( B)  name appearing on the face of the credit card while engaged in the collection of a credit card debt;

(2)  failing to maintain a list of all business or professional names known to be used or formerly used by persons collecting consumer debts or attempting to collect consumer debts for the debt collector;

(3)  representing falsely that the debt collector has information or something of value for the consumer in order to solicit or discover information about the consumer;

(4)  failing to disclose clearly in any communication with the debtor the name of the person to whom the debt has been assigned or is owed when making a demand for money;

(5)  in the case of a third-party debt collector, failing to disclose, except in a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action:

(A)  that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, if the communication is the initial written or oral communication between the third-party debt collector and the debtor; or

( B)  that the communication is from a debt collector, if the communication is a subsequent written or oral communication between the third-party debt collector and the debtor;

(6)  using a written communication that fails to indicate clearly the name of the debt collector and the debt collector's street address or post office box and telephone number if the written notice refers to a delinquent consumer debt;

(7)  using a written communication that demands a response to a place other than the debt collector's or creditor's street address or post office box;

(8)  misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt, or misrepresenting the consumer debt's status in a judicial or governmental proceeding;

(9)  representing falsely that a debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with, or is an instrumentality, agent, or official of, this state or an agency of federal, state, or local government;

(10)  using, distributing, or selling a written communication that simulates or is represented falsely to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by a court, an official, a governmental agency, or any other governmental authority or that creates a false impression about the communication's source, authorization, or approval;

(11)  using a seal, insignia, or design that simulates that of a governmental agency;

(12)  representing that a consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if a written contract or statute does not authorize the additional fees or charges;

(13)  representing that a consumer debt will definitely be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if the award of the fees or charges is subject to judicial discretion;

(14)  representing falsely the status or nature of the services rendered by the debt collector or the debt collector's business;

(15)  using a written communication that violates the United States postal laws and regulations;

(16)  using a communication that purports to be from an attorney or law firm if it is not;

(17)  representing that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not;

(18)  representing that a consumer debt is being collected by an independent, bona fide organization engaged in the business of collecting past due accounts when the debt is being collected by a subterfuge organization under the control and direction of the person who is owed the debt; or

(19)  using any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer.

( B)  Subsection (a)(4) does not apply to a person servicing or collecting real property first lien mortgage loans or credit card debts.

©  Subsection (a)(6) does not require a debt collector to disclose the names and addresses of employees of the debt collector.

(d)  Subsection (a)(7) does not require a response to the address of an employee of a debt collector.

(e)  Subsection (a)(18) does not prohibit a creditor from owning or operating a bona fide debt collection agency.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 851, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., 3rd C.S., ch. 3, Sec. 28.01, eff. Jan. 11, 2004.

 

Sec. 392.305.  DECEPTIVE USE OF CREDIT BUREAU NAME. A person may not use "credit bureau," "retail merchants," or "retail merchants association" in the person's business or trade name unless:

(1)  the person is engaged in gathering, recording, and disseminating information, both favorable and unfavorable, relating to the creditworthiness, financial responsibility, and paying habits of, and similar information regarding, persons being considered for credit extension so that a prospective creditor can make a sound decision in the extension of credit; or

(2)  the person is a nonprofit retail trade association that:

(A)  consists of individual members;

( B)  qualifies as a bona fide business league as defined by the United States Internal Revenue Service; and

©  does not engage in the business of debt collection or credit reporting.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.306.  USE OF INDEPENDENT DEBT COLLECTOR. A creditor may not use an independent debt collector if the creditor has actual knowledge that the independent debt collector repeatedly or continuously engages in acts or practices that are prohibited by this chapter.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

SUBCHAPTER E. DEFENSE, CRIMINAL PENALTY, AND CIVIL REMEDIES

 

 

Sec. 392.401.  BONA FIDE ERROR. A person does not violate this chapter if the action complained of resulted from a bona fide error that occurred notwithstanding the use of reasonable procedures adopted to avoid the error.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.402.  CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person violates this chapter.

( B)  An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500 for each violation.

©  A misdemeanor charge under this section must be filed not later than the first anniversary of the date of the alleged violation.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.403.  CIVIL REMEDIES. (a) A person may sue for:

(1)  injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a violation of this chapter; and

(2)  actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of this chapter.

( B)  A person who successfully maintains an action under Subsection (a) is entitled to attorney's fees reasonably related to the amount of work performed and costs.

©  On a finding by a court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award the defendant attorney's fees reasonably related to the work performed and costs.

(d)  If the attorney general reasonably believes that a person is violating or is about to violate this chapter, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of this state against the person to restrain or enjoin the person from violating this chapter.

(e)  A person who successfully maintains an action under this section for violation of Section 392.101, 392.202, or 392.301(a)(3) is entitled to not less than $100 for each violation of this chapter.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

 

Sec. 392.404.  REMEDIES UNDER OTHER LAW. (a) A violation of this chapter is a deceptive trade practice under Subchapter E, Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code, and is actionable under that subchapter.

( B)  This chapter does not affect or alter a remedy at law or in equity otherwise available to a debtor, creditor, governmental entity, or other legal entity.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />BV80, No the code does not say that they have to be bonded to report- I never stated that they do..you're making a leap-<br /><br />I was going by a previous post I think by NanaC, on CA requirements, and in Texas they are required to post bond and be registered with the Secretary to attempt to collect a debt in Texas- so I advised them of this AND that they are also attempting to collect on a Zombie Debt- the violations I am focusing on is not in the reporting- it is in the ways they are attempting to collect, as well as their refusal to validate<br />- which in my admitted inexperience appears to be violations- they also had 30 days to respond after I requested the reinvestigation, I contacted them after the 30 days was up and was told by a staff member that he knew it was over 30 days, but the "just barely got the info in 2 days prior". Since they did not have proper documentation, and continued to report while there was an ongoing dispute and without documentation...they violated.<br />The Texas Secretary of State sent them a letter that it is unlawful to attempt to collect on a debt in Texas without being bonded and registered. I also complained to the Ca. Attorney General's Office because they are attempting to collect without being bonded and licensed. In their response they replied that they legally authorized to collect on a debt on a California resident- I am a Texas resident and have been for 5 years- they also state that they are not bound by any Texas statutes or laws, being in Ca.- this is untrue.They also stated that upon my request they provided me with an itemized statement of the charges/bill from the OC- this is untrue, I have received NOTHING from them. I also complained about them to the Texas AG's office regarding them not being bonded and licensed here, which is what the Sec. of State advised me to do.<br /><br />My thing is this BV80, with all this going on against them, based on things I have learned on this forum about disputing from long time posters such as yourself I would think I would make some headway.<br />"They" say to make sure if there's a license or bond required in my state to make sure they have one I DID THAT.<br /><br />Another post says it's unlawful to collect on a Zombie Debt, find out what you state and the CA state's SOL is, I DID THAT.<br /><br />Another post suggested DV because many time the CA's don't have any proof you owe the debt, SO I DID THAT.<br /><br />I have found out that all these things have been handled incorrectly by them, and while they are not in violation for reporting, they are in violation for their collection activities. I would think that all this alone would be enough for them to remove this tradline or at least show me some proof so I will get off their back.<br /><br />My question to you BV80 is this: Why are all these different methods and ways of disputing tradelines on this forum at all ?<br /><br />Because in my own experience(in this post as well as in others), when I do follow them and then come back with what I've done (just as suggested)because I've hit a wall, your responses imply that all this effort is in vein.The sense is that, yes you did all these things, they may be in violation BUT... I don't know if it's your nature to be contrary, or play the devils advocate here, but it gets really discouraging to me when I've done what I think is right in different dispute methods only to have you come back and argue a point instead of seeing it on the whole.<br />Yes, they can REPORT, I did not say that they can't,that in and of itself is not unlawful, reporting IS however considered an attempt to collect according to the FTC. My focus here is not that they can't report, it;s that they can't attempt to collect in the manner they have been due to SOL, not being bonded and registered, and failure to validate. My frustration is that I am focusing on their (known)violations and where to go from here,and you're coming back to me what they are doing that IS lawful.What they are doing right negates all their violations ?? Is that what you are saying, because it sure sounds like it.<br />It's like saying,"Yes Ted Bundy was a Serial Killer, but he did have a concealed carry license".<br /><br />What am I missing here ? Like your question,"where does it say in TX code they have to be bonded to report" ? It doesn't,I didn't say they did have to be bonded to report, that is not the position I am taking-but they do have actual violations !! You say "They verified with the CRA's, that's all they are required to do, just because they didn't provide the proof you wanted doesn't mean they violated" If that's true then why in the heck does the following article say that they have to provide ME proof within 30 days if I request validation ??? I got it off this site- and why is all this dispute info here in the first place if it does no good ? Why did I waster all this da*m time ?<br /><br /><br />The Debt Validation Strategy<br />It might be helpful to look at our illustration of the process before you get started. You might also want to read our article on the validation process.<br /><br />1.Dispute the collection with the credit bureaus.<br /><br /><br />2.Look up the Statute of Limitations (SOL) on the debt. If the debt is past the statute of limitations, send them a letter informing that they are trying to collect "zombie debt". This is debt which is too old to have any legal liabilty for a consumer. Here is a sample letter for this.<br /><br /><br />3.If the collection agency does not remove the listing after you point out the SOL, sometimes your only remedy is to sue them.<br /><br /><br />4.If the debt is not past the statute of limitations, send a letter requesting validation to the collection agency (our buddy Bob in the preceding example). If you don't know the address of the collection agency, here is a tip to help you find it.<br /><br /><br />5.Wait 30 days to hear back from the collection agency. Most likely they will not respond or they will respond saying that they received your letter. Only a letter which includes one of the following:<br />◦Proof that the collection company owns the debt/or has been assigned the debt.<br />◦Copies of statements from the original creditor.<br />◦Copy of the original signed loan agreement or credit card application.<br />6.If they haven't sent you satisfactory proof, and are still reporting this on your report, send a copy of your receipt for your registered mail, a copy of the first letter you sent and a statement that they have not complied with the FDCPA and are now in violation of the Act. Tell them they need to immediately remove the collection listing from your credit report or you are going to file a lawsuit because they are in violation of the FDCPA, section 809 (<img class="bbc_emoticon" title="B)" src="http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.png" data-cke-saved-src="http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.png" />.<br /><br /><br />7.Wait 15-20 days to hear back after this second letter to the collection agency. They will either remove it or not respond.<br /><br /><br />8.If they do provide a contract with a signature from the original creditor showing that you owe the debt, there is one more thing you can try: see if they are legally licensed to collect the debt in your state.<br />Not all states require licensing, however. Here's a little cheat sheet (Word Doc) to see what the collection licensing laws in your state are. It's got other handy dandy state law information as well.<br />If you believe that they are not licensed, and licensing is required in your state, write them another letter and tell them they are in violation of your state's collection laws and are subject to prosecution and fines. Cite your state's fines and procedures in the letter. This is a last ditch effort, but has worked in some cases.<br /><br /><br />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV80, No the code does not say that they have to be bonded to report- I never stated that they do..you're making a leap.

 

I was merely going by what you stated in your post about the FTC and that reporting on a CR is an attempt to collect a debt.  I didn't know you were referring to a post by NanaC.   You didn't say that, so I had no way of knowing it.

 

My question to you BV80 is this: Why are all these different methods and ways of disputing tradelines on this forum at all ?<br /><br />Because in my own experience(in this post as well as in others), when I do follow them and then come back with what I've done (just as suggested)because I've hit a wall, your responses imply that all this effort is in vein.The sense is that, yes you did all these things, they may be in violation BUT... I don't know if it's your nature to be contrary, or play the devils advocate here, but it gets really discouraging to me when I've done what I think is right in different dispute methods only to have you come back and argue a point instead of seeing it on the whole.

 

There is no one size fits all when it comes to disputing a TL.  When a TL is being reported accurately, there's only so much one can do.  We cannot tell someone to make a certain dispute and guarantee that the negative TL will be removed.  If we were to do that, it would be dishonest.   I try to be honest. 

 

When it comes to violations, they're only worthwhile if your courts agree they are indeed violations.   Just because my suggestions or comments may seem discouraging to you doesn't mean I'm try to be negative.  I'm merely pointing out that there are sometimes obstacles.  

 

You said that you've disputed several times and the TL came back verified.  You said they had no documents.  How do you know this?   Is that merely an assumption on your part?

 

If you want the TL removed, you may have to sue.  If you sue, you have to prove your case.  Therefore, you need to know how your courts have ruled and what evidence they require for you to prove your case.   I'm not going to tell people that the process is always easy because that's not always the case.

 

Yes, they can REPORT, I did not say that they can't,that in and of itself is not unlawful, reporting IS however considered an attempt to collect according to the FTC. My focus here is not that they can't report, it;s that they can't attempt to collect in the manner they have been due to SOL, not being bonded and registered, and failure to validate. My frustration is that I am focusing on their (known)violations and where to go from here,and you're coming back to me what they are doing that IS lawful.What they are doing right negates all their violations ?? Is that what you are saying, because it sure sounds like it.

 

I specifically stated that I didn't say they didn't have to follow TX law to collect.  I know they have to follow TX law to collect from you.  I never once stated that their collection letters to you were lawful.  I also never stated nor implied that just because they can report on your CR means they can send a collection letter without complying with TX law.  My point was that there's a difference between sending a collection letter and reporting on your CR. 

 

You say "They verified with the CRA's, that's all they are required to do, just because they didn't provide the proof you wanted doesn't mean they violated" If that's true then why in the heck does the following article say that they have to provide ME proof within 30 days if I request validation

 

First, a dispute with the CRAs has nothing to do with the FDCPA.  The validation section in the FDCPA is about disputing a debt when you receive a dunning letter.

 

The FDCPA does not use the word "proof".   It merely states that they have to provide the name of the OC and the amount of the debt.  They also have to provide the address of the OC if you request it.   In addition, they do not have to provide it within 30 days.  The 30 day requirement is for you.  You have to request validation within 30 days of their initial communication.   If you dispute based upon finding their TL on your CR, they are not required to validate because a TL is not considered an "initial communication" like a dunning letter.

 

This is all based upon court precedent, as well.  I didn't make any of it up.  My statement "just because they didn't provide the proof you wanted doesn't mean they violated" was meant to explain that the proof we might require and would like them to provide is not the proof required by law.

 

I got it off this site- and why is all this dispute info here in the first place if it does no good ? Why did I waster all this da*m time ?

 

No one says it doesn't do any good.  It has helped many people.  But it doesn't help everyone.  Perhaps there should be a disclaimer stating that whether or not it works depends upon the situation.

 

I'm sorry if you didn't want me to be honest.  Would you have rather that I stated, "Yes.  They have to provide everything you want within 30 days.  If they don't, the TL gets removed."?  Then you sue and find out that's not the case? 

 

I have a few TLs I'd like to be removed, but it won't happen.  They're being reported accurately by JDBs.  To get them removed, I'd have to sue and claim the JDB doesn't own the account and doesn't have a right to report.  THEN, the judge would have to agree with me.   Unfortunately, my courts have little to no precedent to support my claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV80, would you do me a favor and read my original post ? I don't think we are understanding eachother- I appreciate all your help and experience, and definitely want and need you to be honest- all I am saying is that it is frustrating when they appear to have all these violations, which is what I am focusing on, but your comments are regarding to their right to report- I understand that they can report- and don't need to be bonded and registered to do so- but they do have to be bonded and registered to COLLECT. They are not, but they ARE attempting to collect when they are sending bills, AND reporting according to the FTC. If the FTC ruling is in an isolated case which means that this is not an across the board ruling, I can appreciate that and OK that's fine- BUT, they still sent bills and letters to me in Texas- they still sent bills and letters after the SOL, they still sent bills and letters without  validating the debt- although I did request this and never received a Dunning Letter or anything from them until after my first dispute with the Credit Bureaus- on top of that, they responded to the complaint I filed with AG's Office that they HAD infact sent an itemized statement to me after I requested it- they stated that they sent it on November 20- I have received nothing, even if it were true it was past to 30 days- they also in writing state that I am a California resident and they are not required to follow TX statutes- maybe I am reading wrong, but it appears to me that regardless of the fact that at one time I did live in California, since I am a Texas resident and was when they started billing me they are in violation- you also asked how I know they have no docs- it is merely an assumption on my part ? That kind of statement from you  is what I mean when I say you seem contentious or negative-how do I know what proof do I have ? What proof does anyone have ? all I know is they still haven't sent it - in my original post I addressed this- they didn't have documentation because they stated they did not- and also claimed they sent it when they did not- you also say there is a difference between reporting and collecting- as though I do not know that- I do know that. You seem to think my main issue is the reporting and that my issue is getting the TL removed- of course I would love that BUT- so much has transpired now that the removal is secondary to the violations, the TL can stay onthere forever for all I care- at this point I want them held accountable for their violations - I don't think just because they CAn report, given all their viiolations, they SHOULD report- but since I can't do anything about that and because they are being so nasty, digging their heels in and swearing a blue streak they've done nothing wrong, I want to deal with them for that- don't mind paying it if it;'s mine, but so far they have either been unable or unwilling to prove to me that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV80, would you do me a favor and read my original post ? I don't think we are understanding eachother- I appreciate all your help and experience, and definitely want and need you to be honest- all I am saying is that it is frustrating when they appear to have all these violations, which is what I am focusing on, but your comments are regarding to their right to report- I understand that they can report- and don't need to be bonded and registered to do so- but they do have to be bonded and registered to COLLECT.

 

I do believe we got our wires crossed.  My response about the right to report was originally for another poster who responded to you and stated that the JDB could not report because they weren't licensed.  I was pointing out to that poster that TX licensing law had nothing to do with reporting on a CR.

 

 

but they ARE attempting to collect when they are sending bills, AND reporting according to the FTC. If the FTC ruling is in an isolated case which means that this is not an across the board ruling,

 

It's actually not an FTC ruling.  It was an opinion letter.  Those letters are not binding on courts.  Believe me, I wish they were. 

 

There are cases where courts have ruled that reporting on your CR is a collection activity but it has nothing to do with state licensing law.  It has to do with the FDCPA and the FCRA. 

 

 

you also asked how I know they have no docs- it is merely an assumption on my part ? That kind of statement from you  is what I mean when I say you seem contentious or negative-how do I know what proof do I have ?

 

I wasn't trying to be negative.  You stated that they have no docs.  I merely asked how you knew that.  You didn't provide an explanation stating how you knew it.   That's why I asked.  It's important, because if you were to sue them, you can't make assumptions.  You have to have facts. 

 

 

all I know is they still haven't sent it - in my original post I addressed this- they didn't have documentation because they stated they did not- and also claimed they sent it when they did not-

 

 

In your original post, you stated:

 

They have refused to provide me with any kind of documentation, bills, verification of any kind. The last time I requested this was 10/17, on 11/23 i contacted them and informed them that I had not received any of the requested proof that I owe the debt, to which the young man said,"Well, we just barely got it yesterday, I'll send it today.

I had been disputing this since September, each time it came back as verified and updated- there is no way it could have been verified because they had no docs.

 

Nothing there states that they said they didn't have documentation.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying they do have it.  But, in the above, the CA didn't say they didn't have documentation. 

 

Let's start from the beginning.  In your first post, you stated they'd been trying to collect from you.  Then you went into detail about about your credit (verified an updated).  Then you mentioned the FCRA.  In my first post, I asked if they were actually trying to collect from you, or if they were merely reporting on your CR. 

 

My next post was not in response to you.  It was in response to the poster who stated that reporting on your CR without being licensed was a violation. 

 

In your response to me, you stated that they continued to report without validating.  That's where you brought up your credit report again.  I only responded to what was being posted.

 

I absolutely agree that they've broken TX law.  But I had to respond to the posts about credit reporting because other posters will read this thread.  It wouldn't be right to let them think that a CA must be licensed to report on a CR.

 

One question.  You said you sent validation requests.  Was your first request made within 30 days of their first contact with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Sir it was. I never heard from them until after I initiated the dispute process, never received a Dunning Letter, Bill, nothing. That's why I was so floored. I do have things on my CR's that are righteous, and those I have either disputed and gotten them removed or have paid them off or am paying now-when I saw this I disputed with the Credit Bureaus and also contacted the Collection Agency by letter, I was actually the one who initiated contact. They responded with no statement, no proof, no nothing- just a bill, which 60.00 had been added to along with a letter saying they investigated my dispute and that it was valid and would remain. I fired off another letter requesting validation, the same day I received their initial response, definitely before 30 days... That's when the fun began.

As old as this is (2007) I should have received something from them way before this year- that's why I am having such a problem- I even told them I would pay it if they could prove to me it;s mine-

When they refused to even respond and acknowledge my requests I started digging...that's when I found the Statute of Limitations, requirement to be Bonded and Registered in my State, as well as the Debt Validation articles here- I thought, "Oh cool, they're busted, they'll surely do something now that I am putting them on notice of their various violations". No luck. They just dug their heels in, and disputed the fact that there even ARE any violations- I mentioned SOL, they came back with 7 years they can  report (2 different things) I mentioned being registered and bonded in Texas, they came back with them being in Ca. and I was in Ca when the alleged debt to have occurred and that they don't have to follow any Texas statutes (2 different things) so do you see my frustration ?

It's maddening, even though they have been contacted by the Ca. Attorney General's Office, Texas AG's Office, Texas Secretary of State, Federal Trade Commission, they maintain that they have committed no violations- all this for 142.00, which is the smallest negative tradeline on my Credit Reports.

I also contacted the Credit Bureaus and requested their Method of Verification on this- back on November 20- received 1 resp. from Equifax-dated 12/11- well past the 15 days they have to respond, the other 2 never responded-

Please don't get me wrong- I greatly appreciate all your posts and the time you take to respond to our questions- I apologize for being defensive-it shouldn't have been directed at you, my frustration is in this whole process with these folks.

Plus, my Daddy and his people are from the great State of South Carolina(Springfield/Orangeburg/Pawley's Island/Conway/Sumter)- I have a rich family history there, so I feel a certain kinship.

I am just at a loss as to what to do now- I can't seem to get through to anyone, and this CA has no fear of any consequences.

Thanks ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Development : I just received a message from the manager at the Collection Agency- I returned his call. I thought maybe they were giving in. I was informed that I am a "thorn in his side" that I sicked the Texas Attorney Generals Office on him and that he is innocent, that I am a deadbeat, and that he will no way send me any copies of bills or documentation/communication that was sent from his office, because what I want him to send is a bill, which would only further my case thaT HE IS PRACTICING IN A STATE HE IS NOT REGISTERED TO PRACTICE IN, COMPOUNDING HIS PROBLEMS AND THAT HE IS INNOCENT ! I informed him that I thought he was conceding, and was calling to notify me that he was either sending me the proof I requested or was going to delete the tradeline. He says,"That is going to stay on your credit report and I am personally going to see to it". I said that I don't care, he said "people like me don't care " and that the on ly thing he is going to give me is a hard time- I told him he will get the same from me.

So NOW WHAT ?????

I want to fight this tooth and nail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you could get those statements he made in writing.  You could record the calls, but CA is a 2-party state.  Both parties have to be informed a call is being recorded.  When you call his office, is there a notice given that the calls are being recorded?  If so, I believe you can record the call without telling him.  His statements were over the line.

 

Now, there's nothing that states they have to provide documentation to validate an entry on your CR.  However, considering the violations he's committed by attempting to collect in TX, a deletion might be negotiated.

 

Regarding his claim that he doesn't have to be bonded in TX because the default occurred in CA:

 

Because Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Mr. Cadle and Mr. Diamond are "debt collectors" under the FDCPA and "third-party debt collectors" under the TDCA, they are covered by § 392.101 of the TDCA, which requires third-party debt collectors to obtain surety bonds. Bray v. THE CADLE COMPANY, Dist. Court, SD Texas 2010.

 

From CA Partners v. Spears, 275 SW 3d 51 - Tex:  Court of Appeals 2008:

 

The definition of "third-party debt collector" in the Texas Finance Code tracks the definition of "debt collector" in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See TEX. FIN.CODE § 392.001(7) ("`Third-party debt collector' means a debt collector, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)").

 

Thus, if a debt is in default at the time the assignee acquires his interest in the debt, he is a "third-party debt collector" within the contemplation of the section 392.101(a) of the Texas Finance Code. See TEX. FIN.CODE §§ 392.001(7) & 392.101(a); 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii).

 

I haven't found anything that states if you default in another state, the debt collector doesn't have to follow TX law once to you move to TX.   TX law states that if you want to collect in TX, you have to be bonded.

 

Another question:  In the CA's first letter to you, did they include the 30 day notice to request validation?  If so, when you requested validation, what did they send that they claim would validate the debt?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...