Jump to content

ARS National Services, Inc / Citibank, are they a JDB or Assignee of debt?


scarab
 Share

Recommended Posts

@admin

 

Yes, they can update after an account has been charged off.  But they cannot update after they've sold an account.  I should have been more specific.

BV are you surre about this? I have had entries on my report that says sold to another lender. I have a couple people that have come to me about this question, but I have not done much research on it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BTO429

 

 

It would be the OP's word vs. the CA's word that the letter received was the first communication.

 

 

No, it is not a misrepresentation of the character of the debt.  As you pointed out, an assignee can be collecting for the OC or a purchaser of the account.  So to claim to be an assignee is not a violation. It is a misrepresentation if they do not inform you whether or not they are the assignee or they own the debt. They have to tell you the legal status of the debt.

 

 

The account is still within the SOL and still possibly owned by Chase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that your CR reports a charge off, Once they mark it charged off they cannot update each month and change any info, they can report and say charged off but that's it.

 

ARS National Services, aka Associated Recovery Services, They buy debt=JDB

They have numerous complaints in every state. Now you know how to handle them.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that your CR reports a charge off, Once they mark it charged off they cannot update each month and change any info, they can report and say charged off but that's it.

 

ARS National Services, aka Associated Recovery Services, They buy debt=JDB

They have numerous complaints in every state. Now you know how to handle them.......

 

@BTO429

 

Yes, they can update because they still own the account.  If nothing with the account has changed, they probably won't update.  However, some people still make payments after an account is charged off.  If the OC couldn't update the account, those payments would not be reflected in the balance.

 

 

No, it is not a misrepresentation of the character of the debt.  As you pointed out, an assignee can be collecting for the OC or a purchaser of the account.  So to claim to be an assignee is not a violation. It is a misrepresentation if they do not inform you whether or not they are the assignee or they own the debt. They have to tell you the legal status of the debt.

 

No, it's not a misrepresentation of the legal status of the debt.  Examples of legal status would be claiming they've filed a lawsuit, they have judgment against you, or threatening to garnish wages when they don't have a judgment or if your state doesn't allow garnishment.  It might also include claiming to own the debt if they don't own it.

 

 

A debt buyer can be considered an assignee.

 

"Assignee" is defined as "[o]ne to whom property rights or powers are transferred by another." Black's Law Dictionary 114 (7th ed.1999).

 

That would apply to either a CA or a JDB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BTO429

 

Yes, they can update because they still own the account.  If nothing with the account has changed, they probably won't update.  However, some people still make payments after an account is charged off.  If the OC couldn't update the account, those payments would not be reflected in the balance.

 

 

 

No, it's not a misrepresentation of the legal status of the debt.  Examples of legal status would be claiming they've filed a lawsuit, they have judgment against you, or threatening to garnish wages when they don't have a judgment or if your state doesn't allow garnishment.  It might also include claiming to own the debt if they don't own it. I would argue that ownership is a legal issue.

 

 

A debt buyer can be considered an assignee. YES

 

"Assignee" is defined as "[o]ne to whom property rights or powers are transferred by another." Black's Law Dictionary 114 (7th ed.1999).

 

That would apply to either a CA or a JDB. I know this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80

 

 

 

@admin

 

Updating means you have an account for which you can report a monthly status.  If the account has been sold, the former creditor has no way of knowing the status of the account.

 

Their entry can remain on your CR, but they can't update an account they no longer own because it's not theirs to update. 

 

 

The only exception to this would be if you settled with a collection agency.  The OC must update their listing to "settled".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80

 

 

The only exception to this would be if you settled with a collection agency.  The OC must update their listing to "settled".  

 

If you're referring to an account that has been sold to a JDB, I must respectfully disagree.  Since the OC no longer owns the debt, there's no debt to settle with them, and they're already reporting a -0- balance. 

 

This is from Experian.  BTW, in this instance, when they refer to "collection agency", they're referring to a JDB.  Notice that they say "now the legal owner of the debt."

 

 

Your credit report reflects the history of a debt. If the original creditor sells the account to another lender, it would be shown in your credit report as “Transferred,” or “Sold to” and has a status of “charged off.”

 

This status indicates the original account is no longer the active account entry. That lender is not longer associated with the debt and will no longer provide updates on it. It remains in your credit report to provide a complete history of the debt.

 

The collection agency is now the legal owner of the debt and is responsible for providing any updates or changes in the, payment status of the debt. The collection account may also have a note indicating “Transferred from” or “Purchased from,” and will show the name of the original lender. The notation enables you to easily track the history of the debt and to identify the current debt owner.

 

When you pay off a collection account, you are paying the collection agency, not the original account holder. The collection account, which is the active entry for the debt in your credit report, will be updated to show paid in full; or, in the event the account was settled for less than the full balance, to show “Settled.” Because you did not pay the original creditor, a status of “Paid” or “Settled” on that original account would not be an accurate reflection of your payment history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're referring to an account that has been sold to a JDB, I must respectfully disagree.  Since the OC no longer owns the debt, there's no debt to settle with them, and they're already reporting a -0- balance. 

 

This is from Experian.  BTW, in this instance, when they refer to "collection agency", they're referring to a JDB.  Notice that they say "now the legal owner of the debt."

 

 

Your credit report reflects the history of a debt. If the original creditor sells the account to another lender, it would be shown in your credit report as “Transferred,” or “Sold to” and has a status of “charged off.”

 

@BV80 - As long as the OC isn't reporting a balance, I guess I agree with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BTO429

 

once it is sold the only thin they can legally report is that is has been sold, but they can't do it every month I wouldn't think.

 

I don't know what you mean by they can't do it every month.  Once an OC sells an account, they no longer update.  However, their entry remains on your credit report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Torden

 

So if you dispute that entry, who "validates" it if it ends up staying?

 

If you dispute the entry with the CRAs, they have to notify the OC.  The OC then has to "investigate" their entry. 

 

They simply have to confirm that the information in their entry is correct.   In that case, it doesn't matter that the OC no longer owns the account.  They still have to confirm that information they previously provided when they owned the account is accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While NRS 97 A.160 may make it easier for them to prove the debt there are some stipulations they must meet in the prior sections of 97A

NRS 97A.160  Records required in action to collect debt: Establishment of liability and amount; authentication; retention.

     1.  Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 52 of NRS, in any action brought to collect a debt owed to an issuer:

     (a) The issuer may establish that the cardholder is contractually liable for the debt owed by submitting the written application for a credit card account submitted to the issuer by the cardholder or evidence that the cardholder incurred charges on the account and made payments thereon.

     (B) The amount owed may be established by photocopies of:

           (1) The periodic billing statements provided by the issuer; or

           (2) Information stored by the issuer on a computer, microfilm, microfiche or optical disc which indicate the amount of the debt owed.

     2.  The content of such records must be authenticated:

     (a) Pursuant to the procedures set forth in NRS 52.450 to 52.480, inclusive; or

     (B) By the submission of a written affidavit sufficient to establish:

           (1) The affiant as the custodian of the written records offered as evidence;

           (2) That the written records offered as evidence were made in the ordinary course of the issuer’s business; and

           (3) That the written records are true and correct copies of the records retained by the issuer.

     3.  The liability of a person other than the cardholder for the amount of any debt owed to an issuer may be established by evidence indicating that the person caused the charge to be incurred on the credit card account.

     4.  An issuer shall retain any record necessary to establish the existence and amount of any debt owed to the issuer for at least 24 months after the record is first published, issued or filed.

 

Also notice that this section states the periodic billing STATEMENTS, plural, it does not say they may submit one or two statements, it says the statements. This is to insure that the amount alleged is correct. While this law may make it easier for them to prove the debt, the atty that gave that advice did not want to waste his time on it so he told you this law condemns you. It does not. If you litigate it correctly.

 

If ARS bought the debt

NRS 97A.165  Contents of complaint; limitations.

     1.  In an action brought to collect a credit card debt owed to a purchaser of credit card debt:

     (a) The complaint must include, without limitation:

           (1) The name of the issuer;

           (2) The last four digits of the account number originally assigned by the issuer;

           (3) All subsequent account numbers assigned to the credit card debt by all assignees of the credit card debt; and

           (4) The date of the default on the credit card debt.

     (B) No judgment in favor of the purchaser of credit card debt, including, without limitation, a default judgment, may be entered unless:

           (1) The complaint includes the information required by paragraph (a) of subsection 1; and

           (2) The purchaser of credit card debt has satisfied the standards of proof set forth in subsections 1 and 2 of NRS 97A.160.

     2.  As used in this section, “purchaser of credit card debt” means a person, other than a financial institution, that purchases any outstanding credit card debt.

 

They have to submit virtually the same thing as the OC, there are ways to deaf them using this law.

 

The atty also did not inform you of some of the laws required by laws in the 97A that come before 160.

lets look at 97A.140

NRS 97A.140  Requirements for issuance of credit card; provision and change of terms and conditions for use of credit card; applicable state law.

     1.  An issuer located in this State shall not issue a credit card to a cardholder unless the issuer first:

     (a) Provides the written notice required pursuant to NRS 97A.145 to the cardholder; and

     (B) Receives a written or oral request from the cardholder for the issuance of the credit card.

     2.  An issuer shall provide the cardholder with the terms and conditions that govern the use of the credit card, in writing, before or at the time of the receipt of the credit card. A cardholder shall be deemed to have accepted the written terms and conditions provided by the issuer upon subsequent actual use of the credit card.

     3.  The rate of interest charged, and any other fees or charges imposed for the use of the credit card, must be in an amount agreed upon by the issuer and cardholder.

     4.  An issuer may unilaterally change any term or condition for the use of a credit card without prior written notice to the cardholder unless the change will adversely affect or increase the costs to the cardholder for the use of the credit card. If the change will increase such costs, the issuer shall provide to the cardholder:

     (a) An identifiable notice of the change at least 30 days before the change becomes effective; and

     (B) An opportunity to avoid the change, including, without limitation, by voluntarily closing the credit card account after providing notice to the issuer. If the cardholder closes the credit card account and the issuer provides any information about the account to a credit reporting agency, the issuer must notify the agency that the cardholder voluntarily closed the credit card account.

     5.  Unless otherwise stated as a term or condition, the law of this State governs all transactions relating to the use of a credit card if an issuer, or the service provider of an issuer, is located in this State

 

Number five gives you your way out, most card holder agreements will dictate which state law will govern, So with that said, I can tell you from experience and knowing how atty's operate, a lot of atty just do not like to handle consumer debt, the main reason is there is no REAL money in it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems from this that even for NV OC's ,collecting on a debt is not exactly an easy thing.

 

 

Nevada courts have been cracking down on claim documentation, and especially in the case of retail debt 

collection (although the same rules hold true for commercial debt). In the case of credit card debt, NRS 

97A.160 requires issuers bringing court action to establish the debtor’s contractual liability by one of two 

ways: either by submitting the cardholder’s written application for a credit card, or by offering evidence 

that the cardholder incurred charges on the account and made payments thereon. In practice, however, 

many of the (state) justice court judges of Reno and Las Vegas will refuse to apply the six-year statute of 

limitations, if creditors do not produce a written application/agreement, enforcing instead only the fouryear statute applicable to open accounts (i.e., without a written contract). Furthermore, Nevada courts will 

refuse to enforce a higher-than-statutory pre-judgment interest rate on the debtor’s unpaid balance unless 

the creditor submits a copy of the written contract authorizing a higher rate. See NRS 17.130(2), NRS 

99.040(1). As the current statutory rate (the prime interest rate plus 2 percent) is 5.25%, you can see 

why having a copy of the written agreement can be important. So while creditors are technically free to 

choose their method of establishing the debtor’s liability, best practice is to supply the court with a written 

contract.

In addition to providing proof of contractual obligation, creditors must also be prepared to provide 

evidence of the amount owed on account. NRS 97A.160(1)(B). This evidence can be in the form of 

photocopies of billing statements, or can come from the issuer’s digital or microfilm/microfiche records. 

Id. In either case, however, creditors must authenticate these records to the court via written and signed 

affidavits. Nevada courts regularly find these affidavits insufficient for judgment unless they fully satisfy 

several requirements. NRS 97A.160(2) lists these authentication requirements, offering either of two 

options for compliance. Under one option, the affiant must specifically affirm that he or she is the 

custodian of the records offered as evidence, that the offered records “were made in the ordinary course 

of the issuer’s business,” and that the records “are true and accurate copies of the originals retained by 

the issuer.” Per NRS 97A.160(2)(a), a creditor may alternatively follow the authentication requirements 

applicable to banking and financial institution records, as set forth in NRS 52.450-.480. However, as 

these latter provisions come from the portion of Nevada code set aside for rules of evidence, some 

judges may require compliance with their additional requirements, notwithstanding the apparent choice 

provided by NRS 97A.160. NRS 52.450-.480 require essentially the same phrasing as NRS 

97A.160(2)(B) (as listed above), but require the addition of an assertion “that the original record was 

made at or near the time of the act or event concerning which information was recorded, by or from 

information transmitted by a person with knowledge of the act or event.” NRS 52.460(1). The evidentiary 

rules provide a form for the affidavit, and state that affidavits submitted for authentication purposes “must 

be substantially in the form prescribed.” NRS 52.460(1). This form may be found in NRS 52.260(3), and 

contains the essential phrasing proscribed above
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Latest updates in this story:

Last week I received a call from a number I did not recognize.  650-295-0507

I did not answer it and they did not leave a message.  I thought nothing of it at the time, though I ran the number through Google.  Nothing came up, but it seemed like a collections call.  Turns out it was United Recovery Systems (URS).

 

Today, I got an email from a cousin saying United Recovery Systems called them and asked for my contact information.  My cousin said they had the correct mailing address for me (I don't know if he verified it with them, but it doesn't really matter, as I haven't moved in over 10 years).  They asked for a phone number for me, but my cousin did not give it to them.  URS said they put some correspondence in the mail. Before this contact, my cousin was already aware I am having money troubles.  I told my cousin that if they call again to tell them: if any more call you, just tell them to stop calling you and you have no information for them

I then received an email from a friend of mine saying pretty much the same thing.  I told my friend the same thing I told my cousin.

 

I searched this forum for United Recovery Systems.   While reading some threads, I saw a post about how URS called their mother.  I called my mother and she said no one has called her.  I told her the same thing I told my cousin and friend.

 

I then contacted another friend of mine, and told him the same thing, if they should call him.  He isn't sure if they called him yet.  He said he doesn't answer calls from numbers he does not recognize.

 

I checked my credit report today.  I see an inquiry by URS, last week, for the same day they called me.  Its a soft pull.

  THis is surprising since I froze my credit history with all 3 bureaus.  I guess they were able to access it through Citibank somehow, as an existing creditor.  I wasn't sure if that was possible.  Either that or they just lied to the CRA saying they already had an account with me.  I would not put it past them to lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, but I suspect not.  I think I know what you are getting at: do we have a potential FDCPA violation for mentioning my debt.  I don't think they did, so I am not that lucky.

 

I didn't speak to my cousin.  My cousin sent an email to me, and said that they called asking for a current phone number for me, and that they "sounded like a collection agency".  The CA said they had "just put correspondence in the mail"

 

My cousin is not stupid was previously aware that I am having troubles with CAs, so my cousin just put 2 and 2 together.

 

When/if the "correspondence" arrives, I will simply DV as I did with ARS previously.  I am still surprised that ARS did not send anything to validate.  Its encouraging that my account was passed on to another CA, as I am hoping it was sold and both outfits bought the debt as JDBs.

 

Also, I did a search on my state's site, and found that United Recovery Systems are licensed properly, so no help there.  

 

My mindset right now is that in order to collect from me, they are going to have to sue me AND win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to find out more about "opting out" of the public database services that CAs/JDBs, etc. use.  A friend of mine is a sort of P.I. and I just talked to him about how the CA was able to locate my cousin and another friend of mine and call them.  My (sort of) P.I. friend said I should opt-out of the database services like Peoplesmart, melissadata, TLO, LexisNexis, and a bunch of others.  Is there info on this forum for doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to find out more about "opting out" of the public database services that CAs/JDBs, etc. use.  A friend of mine is a sort of P.I. and I just talked to him about how the CA was able to locate my cousin and another friend of mine and call them.  My (sort of) P.I. friend said I should opt-out of the database services like Peoplesmart, melissadata, TLO, LexisNexis, and a bunch of others.  Is there info on this forum for doing that?

@scarab - I don't know that you can opt out of those services.  I will do some research.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also did some research.  The important ones like Lexis Nexis (Accurint product), TLO, etc. all say the same thing:

 

you can only opt-out if:

  • If you are a law enforcement officer or public official, submit a letter from your supervisor stating that your position exposes you to a threat of death or serious bodily harm; or
     
  • If you are a victim of identity theft, submit a copy of a police report documenting the identity theft or documentation that verifies the identity theft claim such as a letter from your credit card company, and an Identity Theft Affidavit; or
     
  • If you are at risk of physical harm but do not work in law enforcement, submit a copy of a court protective order, a copy of a police report or similar documentation such as a letter from a social worker, a shelter administrator or a health care professional

 

 

I find it amazing that we do not own or control data about us.  I wonder if we, as consumers, should start a movement to get this reversed.  Join in some kind of class action suit or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 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.