Jump to content

Asset Acceptance Required to Tell Consumers They Will not Sue on Time Barred Debt


admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

I have a question about this.  Does anyone know what communications this is required on?  Is it only the initial dunning notice?

 

Asset sent me a letter after I disputed with the CRAs.  Its does state that it's an attempt to collect a debt, but nothing about it being past SOL and they can't/won't sue.  I also received 2 replies to DV letters, and neither of these make this statement either.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about this.  Does anyone know what communications this is required on?  Is it only the initial dunning notice?

 

Asset sent me a letter after I disputed with the CRAs.  Its does state that it's an attempt to collect a debt, but nothing about it being past SOL and they can't/won't sue.  I also received 2 replies to DV letters, and neither of these make this statement either.

 

Thanks in advance.

@Shokk - on any time barred debt is when they have to disclose.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fair amount of legal gibberish in the FTC letter regarding RJM and nothing specific in the other two...but...I get the imprerssion that as long as their letters don't actually threaten to sue you, they don't have to tell you they won't.

@willingtocope - I think I disagree.  And I've seen readers post here that they've gotten this very language on their letters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@admin  You're right...my gibberish to english translator reparsed the RJM FTC ruling, and it says, in effect "...during the course of this investigation, RJM added a statement that they wouldn't sue..." and therefore the FTC closed the investigation.

 

Now, the question is...can the debtor sue Asset for NOT saying they won't sue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@admin  You're right...my gibberish to english translator reparsed the RJM FTC ruling, and it says, in effect "...during the course of this investigation, RJM added a statement that they wouldn't sue..." and therefore the FTC closed the investigation.

 

Now, the question is...can the debtor sue Asset for NOT saying they won't sue?

That is a good question.  I noticed LVNV did use this line in their correspondence with me, Asset did not.  Was wondering if I had any ground to stand on.

 

With the bar for validation being so low, and SOL expired, do I have a way to get them to show what they're charging for?  The balance owed is higher of course then the initial charge off amount.  Feel like I'm stuck at this point.  I would attempt PFD, but I can't afford even 10% of the $7000+ they're saying I owe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shokk - you might get them in hot water with the FTC, but since the ruling is so new, doubt if there is much case law to stand on.  

 

With the bar for validation being so low, and SOL expired, do I have a way to get them to show what they're charging for? 

 

The only way to get them to show what they're charging for is if they report on your credit report.  It is conceivable you could take them to court for misreporting on your credit report if they don't have sufficient proof.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The only way to get them to show what they're charging for is if they report on your credit report.  It is conceivable you could take them to court for misreporting on your credit report if they don't have sufficient proof.  

They are definitely reporting to the CRAs.  That at least gives me another area to dig into.  Methinks its time for another letter. They've still yet to supply the actual account number, only the last 4.

 

Thanks for the info.  If I'm able to dig anything more up on the ruling agaisnt Asset, or how it can be used, I'll definitely post back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I foudn the relavent parts in the decree.  Was going to copy and paste, but it wasn't working too well.

 

Here's a link to the decree itself.  http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523133/120131assetconsent.pdf

 

  This is covered at the end of page 10.  Pretty much any communication that can be considered an attempt to collect a debt.  The fact they add the line:  This is an attempt to collect a debt, etc., in bold print leads me to believe the correspondence is an attempt to colelct the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I foudn the relavent parts in the decree.  Was going to copy and paste, but it wasn't working too well.

 

Here's a link to the decree itself.  http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523133/120131assetconsent.pdf

 

  This is covered at the end of page 10.  Pretty much any communication that can be considered an attempt to collect a debt.  The fact they add the line:  This is an attempt to collect a debt, etc., in bold print leads me to believe the correspondence is an attempt to colelct the debt.

@Shokk - It's late and I am having a hard time getting your point - can you clarify a little more for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@admin Just pointing out that the decree states they must include the verbage that they cannot sue because the debt is time barred.  From what I read, anything that is considered an attempt to collect a debt, must have this verbage.  The letters I received clearly state it is an attempt to collect a debt, but they neglected to include the required statement per the decree.

 

More for anyone else who may have that question.  I believe they are in violation, but I'm not a judge.  I did file a complaint with the FTC, just in case.  Wondering if I should do the same with the BBB.

 

The question was, should I include in my letter that they were (presumably) in violation of the decree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting after talking to some of the other attorney in my area is  they are required to make a statement to this in any and all collection attempts, which means every time they call or send a letter.

 

I am glad they are finally doing something about the issue of these collectors playing dirty with consumers who have no idea about the law, and filing law suits and collecting on zombie debt. Now that this makes them inform consumers that the debt is too old to sue over maybe they will get the picture that the debt is legally barred and tell the collectors to go flip sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting after talking to some of the other attorney in my area is  they are required to make a statement to this in any and all collection attempts, which means every time they call or send a letter.

 

I am glad they are finally doing something about the issue of these collectors playing dirty with consumers who have no idea about the law, and filing law suits and collecting on zombie debt. Now that this makes them inform consumers that the debt is too old to sue over maybe they will get the picture that the debt is legally barred and tell the collectors to go flip sand.

@BTO429 These were respnses to DV letters.  It does state it's an attempt to collect a debt.  In your opinion, should they have stated they could not/would not sue due to being outside SOL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a new area with debt collectors. There is not much case precedent in my area, 7th circuit. But if the court does what it is supposed to do and examine the law as it is written, and with the federal case precedent for some of the biggest debt collection companies in the country, I feel a good attorney could force the issue, because the case precedent in those cases the judges stated any and all communications should contain the verbiage. 

 

My state is gearing up to fight the zombie debt collectors. We have been lobbying hard for changes in the law and some new laws. We have been convincing the state law makers to make it harder on them and make it more expensive. !000 dollars for fdcpa violation is like fining us 1 dollar. We have proposed a 10,000 dollar state fdcpa amount. We have explained that these ca's do not care about the 1000 bucks and t is just a cost of doing business to them. So we proposed to make it more costly for them to do business in my state.

 

Our local news wthr 13 is airing a special at 11pm tonight over this zombie debt issue. Now that we have got it in the news we hope the state law makers take more notice that the people are tired of being pursued and harassed by this industry.

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.