question

[itsme312006]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

I just received a call from a collection agency stating that I had 3 NSF checks listed with their company from 2/2005 or 2/2006 (they gave me both dates but I didn't have a checking account in 2/2006). I started out speaking to one lady who was ok, but when I stated that I couldn't send anything in until next friday, she put me on hold and another woman picked up. When I told her I couldn't send anything for a week, she told me that unless I borrowed the money from someone and paid either Western Union or check by phone either today or tomorrow my account would be sent to the law firm and I would be charged criminally for fraud. She then asked me if I had ever been arrested for passing a bad check. I have NEVER recieved anything in the mail from the company she stated that she was with and according to what I have found out, a demand for payment letter must be sent via certified mail with restricted delivery, demanding payment in 10 days. I was told that I have had over a year to pay these and should have known that they were returned when I balanced my checkbook.

My question: Can she threaten to have me arrested if I don't pay these today or tomorrow and if I asked for a letter verifying these nsf checks shouldnt one be sent out??

[JETX]

Originally Posted by itsme312006

Can she threaten to have me arrested if I don't pay these today or tomorrow and if I asked for a letter verifying these nsf checks shouldnt one be sent out??

Of course she can threaten... however, her threats are very likely a violation of the FDCPA (depends on the full facts and the actual 'threat'). Realize though that is all they are... threats. They have NO basis to arrest or charge you for a crime. Your best bet is to simply get their name and address from them the next time they call... then tell them to NEVER call you again and that all correspondence should be in writing, then hang up.
If they call again.. there are all kinds of advice... record their threats, send them cease and desist letters, etc.
Save those for if they continue to contact you.

[itsme312006]

Thanks JETX for your response. I had called back and asked to speak to her supervisor to try and work something else out, was told that she is the one in charge and that there is noone else to talk to and that if I don't do something today that there will be a warrant issued for my arrest and then hung up on me. So, I guess if they call back I will follow the advice. Again, thanks for the help.

[debtcollector`]

Many counties in Iowa use check diversion companies, which are EXEMPT from the FDCPA. They can threaten to have you arrested and if they fail to collect within a certain time, that is exactly what will happen. The check is returned to the prosecutor who issues a warrant.

DC

[JETX]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

Many counties in Iowa use check diversion companies, which are EXEMPT from the FDCPA.

HUH??? Where did you get that ERRONEOUS opinion from.
At this point, 'check diversion company's (who provide check collection activities for county DA's, etc.) are still covered by the FDCPA. There was a house bill (HR3505) that tried to exempt them.... but it has NOT passed into law. In fact, it very likely will die in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where it was last seen on 3/9/06.
[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03505:@@@X[/url]

[quote]They can threaten to have you arrested and if they fail to collect within a certain time, that is exactly what will happen. The check is returned to the prosecutor who issues a warrant. /QUOTE]
Lots of mistakes in this one.
- There is NOTHING in the OP to even suggest this is 'debt collector' is affiliated in any way with a prosecutor and is very likely simply a debt collector.... and if that is the case (as is likely), a threat of arrest is a violation of the FDCPA.
- Even more likely that this is NOT affiliated with any prosecutor in that the debt collector claimed "my account would be sent to the law firm and I would be charged criminally for fraud." DA offices are not called 'law firms'!! And law firms don't file crime charges.

[debtcollector`]

Originally Posted by JETX

HUH??? Where did you get that ERRONEOUS opinion from.
At this point, 'check diversion company's (who provide check collection activities for county DA's, etc.) are still covered by the FDCPA. There was a house bill (HR3505) that tried to exempt them.... but it has NOT passed into law. In fact, it very likely will die in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where it was last seen on 3/9/06.
[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03505:@@@X[/url]

[quot

According to the ACA -- it passed last week.
The FDCPA amendments were incluuded in the port security bill.

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=338302[/url]

[JETX]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

According to the ACA -- it passed last week.

Passing a bill does NOT make it into law. It would first have to pass BOTH houses, then get the Presidents signature.... and then there is usually a delay (up to 6 months) before it takes affect.

However, some bad news for your from the bill text itself:
"SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011.""

The truth is... this is NOT a law... as the bill was sent to President Bush on 10/3/06... and he has not signed or vetoed... yet.
"S.2856
Title: An original bill to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] (introduced 5/18/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 10/3/2006 Presented to President.
Senate Reports: 109-256 "
[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02856:[/url]

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=338302[/url]

All you did here was provide a link to your own post claiming what you THINK is a law. How about providing a citation, either as a "Public Law" (passed by Congress and signed into law) or a reference to the US Code??
All you have done here is a verbatim copy of someone elses post on the internet.... also without any verification.
[url]http://cmabcs.typepad.com/cmadailynews/news/index.html[/url]

Also, in closing... I have some even worse

[debtcollector`]

A brief couple of cites as to the check diversion program:
1. Regardless of the date on the amendment, I believe the diversion programs are exempt as they are acting as a part of the county prosucors office.

[url]http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=211&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=1799[/url]
[url]http://sao1.co.escambia.fl.us/checks.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.eatoncounty.org/prosecutor/ECU-Diversion-BadCheck.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.co.leon.fl.us/statty/Worthless_Check_Diversion_Program.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.keyssao.org/WC.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.da-badcheck.com/[/url]
[url]http://www.ci.elk-river.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B8C1A05D0-C998-46FB-9210-034AE972F1F7%7D[/url]
[url]http://www.ckfraud.org/penalties.html[/url]


The ACA disagrees with my POV on this:
[url]http://www.acainternational.org/?cid=7452[/url]

Pending lawsuits regarding this:
[url]http://www.citizen.org/documents/PendingClassActionLawsuits-CheckDiversion.pdf[/url]



I think that will about cover it except to say that there are 17 states that have statutory check diversion programs. A final judical decision on the status of the companies as 3rd party collectors hasn't -- to my knowledge -- been reached and the case is moot know that the law has been passed.

DC

[JETX]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

I believe the diversion programs are exempt as they are acting as a part of the county prosucors office.

Where does it say ANYTHING about this being a contact from a diversion program in this thread??
Simply... it doesn't. Only in your mind.