strange letter

got a letter from a law firm representing nco???? saying they MAY sue me for a bill i am not sure what is for.i believe it is a cc debt from over 4 years ago but the date they state is back in 99. i may have accidently re-affirmed a debt then by phone before i knew you could re-affirm without making a payment.
the real curious part was that they said they would be willing to cut the debt down 45 percent which would make me owe about 2000.00, saving me 9000.00?????i can't fiqure the math out on that one. any suggestions or comments? should i ask for verification of the debt and original creditor?just ignore it?
also once a debt has been sold can i demand to just work with original creditor???
thanks and happy new year!!!!!!
jackrabbit
tx.

got a letter from a law firm representing nco???? saying they MAY sue me for a bill i am not sure what is for.

Tell you what. I took the time and trouble to answer your post and then I saw your post over on another thread. So I just now deleted what might have helped you. Hope they screw you good.

Like you said, you wouldn't understand a decent answer anyway.

ALWAYS state that you will only deal with the original creditor. Do this via certified mail so you'll have a record of it. That's all you really need to do in order to deal the with the "collection agencies".

As far as tackling the debt itself.....are you wanting to get it wiped off of your credit report?

FKNA,

Where do you get this information? You have *no* right to prevent a credit card company from assigning a debt to a third party. Further, if you had actually *read* the original post, you would see that NCO has purchased the debt, they are the ONLY creditor with whom jackrabbit may deal as they own all right, title, and interest in and to the particular debt. I wish you would stop giving people this crap information about sending a certified letter about the original creditor - because it is completely untrue laughable. The ONLY information that any collection agency is required to provide is the name and address of the original creditor, but they are the assignor and have every right to proceed with collection action on the debt in spite of your stupid letter.

Now jackrabbit,

The statute of limitations on a credit card runs from the date of your last payment. So if you made a payment in 1999 that is why they quote that as the default date, and they are correct in asserting that the statute runs from that date. You cannot demand to work with the original creditor, even if the debt was not sold - that is false information. Now that it is sold NCO Portfolio Management is the creditor and you must work with them. They may be taking into account in the $9000 the attorney fees you will save if they aren't forced to file a lawsuit. You can ask for verification of the debt, but you'll be getting a copy of the cardholder agreement with your summons.

I suggest you take advantage of their offer. If NCO has had their attorney write you a letter they are serious and intend to proceed against you. If you do not wish to be sued and have a judgment entered against you, contact them and agree to the settlement. Given that you ran up the card in the first place, it shouldn't hurt you to pay what you owe anyway - right?


[email]JASON@LEGISLATOR.COM[/email]

"What are you people thinking???"

JasonRT...you can start by reading the Fair Debt Collections Act. How about re-reading my post. I never stated that the original creditor could not sell off the bad debt to a third party. However, one has RIGHTS. If Jackrabbit sends that certified letter as I stated to the third party collection agency they will have to CEASE all collection activities on the account. You my friend need to educate yourself as to what rights people have when it comes to debt collection.

Jackrabbit....do you know what the original debt was, $2,000? One of the tactics third party collection agencies use is they tack on the interest rate (that you original agreed to) to the debt. Caculated over several years that can run up in the thousands. They then quote you that balance for the debt and usually the first "offer" they make you is actually higher than what the original debt was when it went delinquent.

I wouldn't let Jason put the fear in ya. If they are offering a settlement of $2,000, it would cost them more than that to try and collect on that debt in the courts. It isn't worth it to them. It's all just a numbers game. Purchase bad debt for pennies on the dollar, send out letters, pound the phones.

Let's put the "legal" aspect aside for a moment and speak about the "moral" aspect. If you owe a debt, you need to pay it.

As far as the attorney writing the letter. These collection agencies retain a lawyer to write a legal form letter and they just fill in the blanks.

JasonRT....read it and weep.

(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

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

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

[url]http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm[/url]

[color=brown]The ONLY information that any collection agency is required to provide is the name and address of the original creditor, but they are the assignor and have every right to proceed with collection action on the debt in spite of your stupid letter.[/color]

God! Will your stupidity never cease, Jason? I'm about as sick and tired of jerks like you thinking you know so damned much and trying to foist your ignorance off on others as being fact.

Now then, let's learn the truth of the matter for once and put an end to your crapola. You think you can read FDCPA and run around shooting your fat mouth off like you were some kind of expert. Here is how wrong you really are. Just remember one thing, knucklehead. You and all the legislators in this entire land can write all the laws you can dream up but they aren't &#138hit until the courts tell us whether they are legal law and what they mean. Here is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Spears v Brennan March 2001 says about what 3rd party debt collectors have to provide to a consumer demanding the information in a timely manner.

From the Issue Two: Debt Collection Notice

Next, we address Spears’ claim that Brennan’s debt collection notice failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). That provision governs the verification rights of consumers and requires debt collectors, at the outset, to send consumers a written notice containing the following information:
<li>(1) the amount of the debt;
<li>(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
<li>(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any
portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
<li>(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any
portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer
and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
<li>(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

Now then, motormouth, that's what the courts have ruled and the 7th isn't the only one that has ruled in the same way. You know more about the law than the FDCPA than the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals does, you go preach it to the judges who ruled that you are full of it.

And here is another of your equally dumb crap statements.

[color=brown]The statute of limitations on a credit card runs from the date of your last payment. So if you made a payment in 1999 that is why they quote that as the default date, and they are correct in asserting that the statute runs from that date.[/color]

In the <a href="http://http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/amason.htm">FTC staff opinion letter known as AMASON</a> we find the truth of the matter as the FTC sees it and as the courts have ruled. Clicking on the link above will take you to the FTC staff opinion letter, and here it is in part below:

2. Is the reporting period extended if
<li>(A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor,
<li>(B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or
<li>(C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs?

No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date
certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail.
Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff.

And here is another one of your stupid ejaculations to jackrabbit.

[color=brown]You can ask for verification of the debt, but you'll be getting a copy of the cardholder agreement with your summons.[/color]

A copy of the cardholder agreement does not prove a debt. Many courts have ruled on this matter specifying exactly what must be provided as proof of a debt. Civil Rules of Procedure are also very specific about what does and does not constitute proof of a debt. If you ever read one you would know that and you would not be in these forums proving your ignorance and trying to make others think you know what you are talking about. And here is another ignorant and totally false bit of crapola colored brown so people can recognize it for what it is.

[color=brown]I suggest you take advantage of their offer. If NCO has had their attorney write you a letter they are serious and intend to proceed against you. If you do not wish to be sued and have a judgment entered against you, contact them and agree to the settlement.[/color]

You know nothing about NCO or what they will do. Yet you advise another person to throw in the towel and pay up. NCO is the largest collection agency in the land. Their total revenues last year (2000) were over $88 million. That's not their total collections, that's their profit. They are listed on the NYSE and are considered to be the leader in the collections field in the U.S. today.

They spend millons training their people. Guess what. Send them a properly worded demand for validation and they throw up their hands and send the debt back to the creditor if they can or they will do everything it takes to dump the debt and get it off jackrabbit's credit reports rather than face the consequences if they don't. They bought out X.Com which was a flash in the pan internet bank now gone a couple of years. They had a ball with that one and collected bundles from people who followed your dumb cluck ideas. Those who have used my validation letter got the surprise of their lives. NCO could not prove anyone ever owed them a crying dime and they ran from my letters like they were hand grenades with the pin already pulled.

I see FKNA is laying it on you too while I am writing this one. I can see all the posts going up all over this forum and several more all at the same time. You and a couple of other bozos around here have made an awful lot of mistakes, but the biggest one is probably your thinking I'm just some little Oklahoma nut. Boy have you got a big surprise coming your way. I don't work with the guesses you think I do. I work only with what the courts have ruled and what the FTC has ruled and whole host of other government agencies have ruled. And no, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a government or state employee. I don't repair anybody's credit and I don't repair anybody's debts. In fact, I don't repair anything except the stupidities of clowns like you.

Wake up and die right.

Originally posted by FKNA JasonRT....read it and weep.

(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy

Great, what does this say about dealing with the original creditor? N O T H I N G! That's right, nothing. You should have read it yourself :-). In fact, the law specifically says that the collection agency can continue to take further action in the form of legal remedies. When you tell them to stop contacting you, what other choice do they have but to sue. This does not prevent the credit card company from assigning the debt.

You made my point for me, thanks.


[email]JASON@LEGISLATOR.COM[/email]

Originally posted by bbauer
God! Will your stupidity never cease, Jason? I'm about as sick and tired of jerks like you thinking you know so damned much and trying to foist your ignorance off on others as being fact.

bbauer- this is how everyone on this forum feels about you, I am providing real information to people, you are spouting crap.

Now then, let's learn the truth of the matter for once and put an end to your crapola. You think you can read FDCPA and run around shooting your fat mouth off like you were some kind of expert. Here is how wrong you really are. Just remember one thing, knucklehead. You and all the legislators in this entire land can write all the laws you can dream up but they aren't &#138hit until the courts tell us whether they are legal law and what they mean. Here is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Spears v Brennan March 2001 says about what 3rd party debt collectors have to provide to a consumer demanding the information in a timely manner.

Again, you're not reading. This debt was PURCHASED by NCO. They are not a third party, they are the first party. Nobody said she didn't have a right to verficiation of the debt. They will have no trouble providing it to her either. All I said is that she doesn't have the right to only deal with the original creditor, this debt may be, and has been assigned.

And here is another one of your stupid ejaculations to jackrabbit. A copy of the cardholder agreement does not prove a debt. Many courts have ruled on this matter specifying exactly what must be provided as proof of a debt. Civil Rules of Procedure are also very specific about what does and does not constitute proof of a debt. If you ever read one you would know that and you would not be in these forums proving your ignorance and trying to make others think you know what you are talking about. And here is another ignorant and totally false bit of crapola colored brown so people can recognize it for what it is.

Never read a court ruling? Must have skipped that day in law school I guess. And I suppose jackrabbit has the financial ability to retain an attorney and litigate her claim on this basis? I think not. And even if she is successful, they will be able to get all of the required verification together by trial and she will still lose. Failing to provide timely verification does not nullify the debt, it merely creates a potential FDCPA claim.

You know nothing about NCO or what they will do. Yet you advise another person to throw in the towel and pay up. NCO is the largest collection agency in the land. Their total revenues last year (2000) were over $88 million. That's not their total collections, that's their profit. They are listed on the NYSE and are considered to be the leader in the collections field in the U.S. today.

This was one of my favorite parts of your post. I suppose you're right, I would have no idea what NCO would do. I was only a Senior Vice President there for six years before going into business for myself. In that position I wouldn't have gleaned any knowledge as to their internal policies and procedures...right? LOL.

They spend millons training their people. Guess what. Send them a properly worded demand for validation and they throw up their hands and send the debt back to the creditor if they can or they will do everything it takes to dump the debt and get it off jackrabbit's credit reports rather than face the consequences if they don't. They bought out X.Com which was a flash in the pan internet bank now gone a couple of years. They had a ball with that one and collected bundles from people who followed your dumb cluck ideas. Those who have used my validation letter got the surprise of their lives. NCO could not prove anyone ever owed them a crying dime and they ran from my letters like they were hand grenades with the pin already pulled.

There you go promoting your little business again. Again, if you could pay attention...this debt is not a contingency assignment to NCO. This debt is OWNED by NCO. Believe me, they will be able to prove it up. If the original bank is unable to provide enough documentation to make the debt legally enforceable they are required to buy back the account from NCO PM (this is called a put back). Because banks don't like buying back their charged off accounts, they make sure to provide everything their purchasors need upon request.

I see FKNA is laying it on you too while I am writing this one. I can see all the posts going up all over this forum and several more all at the same time. You and a couple of other bozos around here have made an awful lot of mistakes, but the biggest one is probably your thinking I'm just some little Oklahoma nut. Boy have you got a big surprise coming your way. I don't work with the guesses you think I do. I work only with what the courts have ruled and what the FTC has ruled and whole host of other government agencies have ruled. And no, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a government or state employee. I don't repair anybody's credit and I don't repair anybody's debts. In fact, I don't repair anything except the stupidities of clowns like you.

It's amazing how all of the experienced posters on this forum can be so wrong about you. To tell the truth you are a nut! To give information like this and have it proven wrong beyond a doubt, but then continuing to give it out only to be made fun of? Those are not the actions of a reasonable person. You are unable to provide any facts to substantiate your opinions. I am sure Halkert is right and you're on your way out.


[email]JASON@LEGISLATOR.COM[/email]

"What are you people thinking???"

Originally posted by JasonRT


Great, what does this say about dealing with the original creditor? N O T H I N G! That's right, nothing. You should have read it yourself :-). In fact, the law specifically says that the collection agency can continue to take further action in the form of legal remedies. When you tell them to stop contacting you, what other choice do they have but to sue. This does not prevent the credit card company from assigning the debt.

You made my point for me, thanks.


[email]JASON@LEGISLATOR.COM[/email]

You just don't get it, do you? Jackrabbit "thinks" this debt may be from a credit card 4 years ago. He has never stated what he even "thinks" the debt might of been. Yet you waste no time in telling him to SETTLE on what they OFFER on an amount THEY say is owed. L U D I C R O U S!

Yes, the credit card company can turn the debt over to a third party. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.

"the collection agency can continue to take further action in the form of legal remedies."...."what other choice do they have but to sue" Yeah sure right.....what will happen is they will receive that letter, they will most likely NOT take any action within the required time frame. What happens then? They are SOL. You really think they would go through the legal expense trying to recover $2,000 in debt? Dream on, cost too much money. They're going to focus on sending out those form letters and pounding those phones. And when the come across someone that knows their rights, they don't waste their time....they move on to the next one.

JasonRT....this one statement alone by you shows your ignorance in these matters.

"Again, you're not reading. This debt was PURCHASED by NCO. They are not a third party, they are the first party"

Originally posted by FKNA
You just don't get it, do you? Jackrabbit "thinks" this debt may be from a credit card 4 years ago. He has never stated what he even "thinks" the debt might of been. Yet you waste no time in telling him to SETTLE on what they OFFER on an amount THEY say is owed. L U D I C R O U S!

I don't see how it is ludicrous to pay your bills and avoid litigation in the process. If NCO is sending a pre-suit letter they intend to sue. They do not blanket their accounts with these letters.

Yes, the credit card company can turn the debt over to a third party. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.

Yes, you do have to deal with them. If not through communication then through litigation. What don't you understand?

"the collection agency can continue to take further action in the form of legal remedies."...."what other choice do they have but to sue" Yeah sure right.....what will happen is they will receive that letter, they will most likely NOT take any action within the required time frame. What happens then? They are SOL. You really think they would go through the legal expense trying to recover $2,000 in debt? Dream on, cost too much money. They're going to focus on sending out those form letters and pounding those phones. And when the come across someone that knows their rights, they don't waste their time....they move on to the next one.

What would make you think they are out of luck if they do not provide immediate verification. Once they receive the necessary documents, they can proceed at any time they choose. They are not SOL by any means. Yes, I not only think but know for a fact NCO will sue on a $2,000 purchase balance. It doesn't cost hardly anything to initiate litigation. Attorney services are cheap, you are awarded more than you expend on the default schedule, court costs are recoverable.

They do not just drop everything on their owned accounts. This is an account they purchased. If they simply close the account, they lose the capital they put into purchasing it. I would agree with you if this were a contingency matter, but it is not. You are either ignoring or don't understand the facts. I suspect it is the latter.


[email]JASON@LEGISLATOR.COM[/email]

"What are you people thinking???"

Originally posted by FKNA
JasonRT....this one statement alone by you shows your ignorance in these matters.

"Again, you're not reading. This debt was PURCHASED by NCO. They are not a third party, they are the first party"

No, in fact your statements show your ignorance on these matters. Purchased debt is no different than any other purchased asset. If you purchase your home from someone are you the 3rd party homeowner? I think not. No difference with debt.

This is why the FDCPA was amended when debt buying started to become popular. Under the old act, debt purchasors were not regulated under the FDCPA because they were first party collectors. Now the FDCPA specifies that you will also be regulated if you purchase delinquent debt portfolios for the purpose of collection, even though you are the first party collecting on your own debt.

Little history lesson was needed I suppose. It is alright that you don't understand all of these issues, just don't try to pretend you do. There are too many truly knowledgeable people here and you will make yourself look like a fool every time.


[email]JASON@LEGISLATOR.COM[/email]

"What are you people thinking???"

JasonRT,§ 811. Legal actions by debt collectors [15 USC 1692i]

(a) Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall --

(1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumer's obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real property is located; or

(2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1), bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity --

(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or

(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.

(b) Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.

So far, doesn't sound as inexpensive as you are trying to portray it.