Without divulging too much information, here is a new story.
I had a CC issued from a small institution in another state years ago. They sent this to collections in the same state. The collector was not licensed to collect in my state and an arm of the attorney general sent them a warning.
After several months the account was passed to a local CA with what appears to be an amount that is $4-$5 grand more than the alleged debt. By the way, the original out-of-state CA did provide DV.
I then DV'd the local CA and the account went back to the out-of-state CA (strange, but true.) I never received a DV response from local CA. The original CA out-of-state then resumed collections, and I once again filed a complaint within my state. The account then goes BACK to the local CA who duns me again having never responded to my original DV request.
I send them a letter notifying them of their violations (continued collections and failure to provide full name and address of original creditor,) submitting the original correspondence and return-receipt signed by their representative. They respond saying that they could not get information to validate the debt 8-10 months ago. I'm beginning to think my local rural CA firm has litle or no clue with consumers protecting their rights. LOL
What they sent me was an application for the assumed debt, without any contract information or copies of required state and federal disclosures (state law requirements here.) I have now informed them that I am quite prepared to answer any and all litigation actions related to said alleged debt.
I am asking for an accounting of the amount "dunned" for $12K and the documentation of the alleged OC debt of $7500. They claim they have been "assigned" the debt. I have asked for the name and address of the party who assigned them the debt. I am convinced that the debt was assigned to them by the out-of-state CA, and not the OC. This could be a tough explanation on their part should this come before a judge as now mirepresentation and deception could be called into play.
I have also bundled all correspondence over the past 13 months and forwarded this to my state attorney general's office.
What I find humorus is that the local CA has a balance of $12K but provides me with an alleged accounting to OC of $7500. I'm thinking that the local CA is now a subcontractor for the out-of-state CA who most likely purchased the debt from the OC. What a bunch of lunatics! I am more than willing to spend $200 to answer any summons related to this alleged account. Local CA is trying to dun for over 50% of original alleged OC account. Yet they provide me with the alleged original balance from alleged creditor. Someone is not thinking this through.
Will the local CA continue with collection attempts through legal channels? This is one of those cases where I hope they will. At some point in time, the CA will have to account for the discrepency in what they list as collection to the alleged original amount. They will also need to argue their own ignorance of state and federal collection laws. I would love to hear what a judge in my district has to say about the year's worth of correspondence and potential usury fees attached to an application with no contract terms or disclosures. LOL
Has anyone else had experience with similar behavior from CA's?
I had a CC issued from a small institution in another state years ago. They sent this to collections in the same state. The collector was not licensed to collect in my state and an arm of the attorney general sent them a warning.
After several months the account was passed to a local CA with what appears to be an amount that is $4-$5 grand more than the alleged debt. By the way, the original out-of-state CA did provide DV.
I then DV'd the local CA and the account went back to the out-of-state CA (strange, but true.) I never received a DV response from local CA. The original CA out-of-state then resumed collections, and I once again filed a complaint within my state. The account then goes BACK to the local CA who duns me again having never responded to my original DV request.
I send them a letter notifying them of their violations (continued collections and failure to provide full name and address of original creditor,) submitting the original correspondence and return-receipt signed by their representative. They respond saying that they could not get information to validate the debt 8-10 months ago. I'm beginning to think my local rural CA firm has litle or no clue with consumers protecting their rights. LOL
What they sent me was an application for the assumed debt, without any contract information or copies of required state and federal disclosures (state law requirements here.) I have now informed them that I am quite prepared to answer any and all litigation actions related to said alleged debt.
I am asking for an accounting of the amount "dunned" for $12K and the documentation of the alleged OC debt of $7500. They claim they have been "assigned" the debt. I have asked for the name and address of the party who assigned them the debt. I am convinced that the debt was assigned to them by the out-of-state CA, and not the OC. This could be a tough explanation on their part should this come before a judge as now mirepresentation and deception could be called into play.
I have also bundled all correspondence over the past 13 months and forwarded this to my state attorney general's office.
What I find humorus is that the local CA has a balance of $12K but provides me with an alleged accounting to OC of $7500. I'm thinking that the local CA is now a subcontractor for the out-of-state CA who most likely purchased the debt from the OC. What a bunch of lunatics! I am more than willing to spend $200 to answer any summons related to this alleged account. Local CA is trying to dun for over 50% of original alleged OC account. Yet they provide me with the alleged original balance from alleged creditor. Someone is not thinking this through.
Will the local CA continue with collection attempts through legal channels? This is one of those cases where I hope they will. At some point in time, the CA will have to account for the discrepency in what they list as collection to the alleged original amount. They will also need to argue their own ignorance of state and federal collection laws. I would love to hear what a judge in my district has to say about the year's worth of correspondence and potential usury fees attached to an application with no contract terms or disclosures. LOL
Has anyone else had experience with similar behavior from CA's?