Fair Debt Collection Practices

[kjvoodoo]

UT State

I am dealing with a collection agency that is asking for twice the amount fo the original debt. They have not followed the FDCPA multiple times for example. Never gave written notice of debt after orignal contact, never gave opportunity to ask for validation of debt, added "collection fees" to debt amount (not allowed in UT according to UT's attorney general's consumer protection office), Have added triple the amount of a payment that bounced, without giving opportunity to make payment within 30 days(also UT law), etc...

The debt I owe is $1187, they are asking for $2282. A Sherrif just dropped off a notice to my wife regarding this debt. Do they have any legal grounds to collect the amount they are asking for? I have no problem with paying them what I owe, but I refuse to pay twice that much because they felt the need to throw in thier fees.

 

[TigerD]

I have no problem with paying them what I owe, but I refuse to pay twice that much because they felt the need to throw in thier fees.

This is rich. If you have no problem paying what you owe -- THEN WHY HAVEN'T YOU?

C'mon, shovel the horse poop on the garden. We're stocked up here. We don't know you and we don't care. So be honest - it will help you get more accurate and better answers.

As for the rest of your post see the following:

I am dealing with a collection agency that is asking for twice the amount fo the original debt. They have not followed the FDCPA multiple times for example. Never gave written notice of debt after orignal contact,
What do you mean? You wanted the OC to send you a warm fuzzy letter that says, we are going to send you to collections now.


never gave opportunity to ask for validation of debt,
You always have the opportunity to ask for validation. It is up to you to do so. They have no obligation to hold your hand.

added "collection fees" to debt amount (not allowed in UT according to UT's attorney general's consumer protection office),
Is the increase a collection fee, or legal interest and late payment fees. You never state what type of debt this is -- it does make a difference.


Have added triple the amount of a payment that bounced, without giving opportunity to make payment within 30 days(also UT law), etc...
You seem to be very knowledgeable of Utah law -- I assume you went to law school and can provide the citations for those statements.


The debt I owe is $1187, they are asking for $2282. A Sherrif just dropped off a notice to my wife regarding this debt. Do they have any legal grounds to collect the amount they are asking for?
Apparently they feel they do. That's why they are suing you. I suggest you contact a real attorney, you are in over your head.

I have no problem with paying them what I owe, but I refuse to pay twice that much because they felt the need to throw in thier fees.

So as I read this, you have a valid past due debt and are being sued for it. They have added *possibly* interest and legal fees. Despite your claims to be willing to pay the debt you have failed to do so. Seems like they have grounds to sue to me.

DC

 

[kjvoodoo]

This is rich. If you have no problem paying what you owe -- THEN WHY HAVEN'T YOU?
Because if I pay them anything, doesn't it validate the entire amount that they are asking for?

What do you mean? You wanted the OC to send you a warm fuzzy letter that says, we are going to send you to collections now.
I expect them to follow the FDCPA which says "Within five days after you are first contacted, the collector must send you a written notice telling you the amount of money you owe; the name of the creditor to whom you owe the money; and what action to take if you believe you do not owe the money." Quoted directly from the FTC website. They never did this. Am I wrong to expect this? Do all debt collectors ignore the laws that pertain directly to them?

You always have the opportunity to ask for validation. It is up to you to do so. They have no obligation to hold your hand.
This pertains directly to the end of the above quote, "...what action to take if you believe you do not owe the money." Never happened.

Is the increase a collection fee, or legal interest and late payment fees. You never state what type of debt this is -- it does make a difference.
I had them give me an itemized list of charges, and the extra fees were labeled as "collection fee". From the FTC website: "collectors may not collect any amount greater than your debt, unless your state law permits such a charge" The UT division of consumer protection states that UT has no Laws or statues allowing debt collectors or agencies to add charges to the original debt.

You seem to be very knowledgeable of Utah law -- I assume you went to law school and can provide the citations for those statements.
You don't have to go to law school to look at UT Code. section 7-15-1 states that they can add fees and charges to a bounces check if they first send, through certified mail, a notice(format given in 7-15-2) saying that the check has not cleared and giving 30 days to pay the amount of the check. They didn't do this. I never knew the check bounced until they added $600 to their fees... I'm sure you're ok with that as well.


So as I read this, you have a valid past due debt and are being sued for it. They have added *possibly* interest and legal fees. Despite your claims to be willing to pay the debt you have failed to do so. Seems like they have grounds to sue to me.
The fees they've added are not interest fees or legal fees. They are collection fees for the original debt and for a bounced check. Those fees add up to almost the amount of the original debt, but are not legal. I am willing to pay the orignial debt, but I'd like something in writing from them stating that the amount I owe is the orignal debt and nothing more. If they bring a legal suit against me, I will lawyer up and bring all of these FDCPA violations to the court with me. I'm asking for advice as to how to keep from having to go to court over this.

Now, you being a debt collector explains you're unwarranted ******* demeanor. But why are you here if you're not willing to help?

 

[Debt Guy]

OK. You have been sued. You must now solve all these problems and disputes in court.

If you are unwilling to hire a competent attorney, you are going to have to represent yourself. The first step is to file your answer to the lawsuit. You need to determine if you have counterclaims and what defenses you wish to assert. You need to start thinking about discovery.

It is unclear from your post exactly who you are dealing with and what type of debt you are dealing with. At one point it almost appears this is a dispute over a bounced check. I wonder also if the account is being collected by the original creditor or a collection agency.

 

[Fizzle1979]

I would search the web a little more and try to get some more helpful advice and not just depend on one answer from one person. Get a few answers from others who have been in your situation and won.

 

[TigerD]

1. OP claims original debt that he owes is $1187.

The debt I owe is $1187, they are asking for $2282.

2. While the OP has never stated who is collecting the debt or the type of debt, he has implied that it is a bad check and probably by the OC. If it is by the OC, the FDCPA doesn't apply.

3. OP claims that he is being charge for triple the amount of the check - which is clearly stated to be $1187 and he is being sued for $2282 - which is less than double the amount of the debt.


If the OP actually wants help -- he is going to have to provide accurate information.

What type of debt is this? Credit card, car loan, mortgage bad check ...
When was the last payment and for how much?
When was the contract signed -- or check written, if for a bad check?
What is he referring to as a collection fee and why?

But frankly I don't think the OP really wants help -- he wants to gripe. We shall see.

DC

 

[Fizzle1979]

Again, I would seek advice from someone who isn't a debt collector. You need to search the web for consumer forums, someone who has been in your situation and you will be able to ask them for advice. The debt collectors on this forum are just going to tell you to pay the bill, they believe everything is black and white...its your debt pay it...they don't believe the debt collector does any wrong or ever makes a mistake.

 

[Debt Guy]

Again, I would seek advice from someone who isn't a debt collector. You need to search the web for consumer forums, someone who has been in your situation and you will be able to ask them for advice. The debt collectors on this forum are just going to tell you to pay the bill, they believe everything is black and white...its your debt pay it...they don't believe the debt collector does any wrong or ever makes a mistake.

Fizz -- go back and read my post to the OP. It was entirely supportive and posed several questions that the OP never answered. Thus, DC's observation that it appears the OP was venting instead of looking for help.

Since the OP never clarified, none of us know what the real story is.

I know that CIC has this mindset of assuming there was skullduggery if not outright fraud by the collector in every case. That is why there is so much venting and pity parades there. I happen to not think that is constructive and I believe the initial premise is usually fallacious.

The mindset at FA seems different. I know that DC can be blunt at times. Even his bluntness gets softened by other posters. I think posters get good and accurate advice here.

I could care less that you start from a different set of assumptions. Your bias is pretty evident.

Everyone has at least some bias. I've never hidden my feeling that people should pay their bills if they can. I've also never hidden my contempt for any CA who violates the law. There is nothing in conflict with those statements.

There was nothing in my response that was inconsistent with that set of values.

I look for practical solutions to the problem the poster is raising. For most people, litigation is not a practical solution. It know it is your hobby. For most people, that is just not the case.

 

[kjvoodoo]

1. OP claims original debt that he owes is $1187.


2. While the OP has never stated who is collecting the debt or the type of debt, he has implied that it is a bad check and probably by the OC. If it is by the OC, the FDCPA doesn't apply.

Debt is for rent. Advanced Credit Management, a collection agency, is trying to collect.

3. OP claims that he is being charge for triple the amount of the check - which is clearly stated to be $1187 and he is being sued for $2282 - which is less than double the amount of the debt.

original debt is $1187 for the rent and late fees owed. collection agency added around $600 to this price and called it "collection fees." bringing the total to around $1800. Then, when I did send a check for $200 to begin payment(that bounced through my neglect), they asked for triple the amount of the check in returned check fees.


If the OP actually wants help -- he is going to have to provide accurate information.

What type of debt is this? Credit card, car loan, mortgage bad check ... Rent
When was the last payment and for how much? the only payment I've sent was the $200, before I really looked at what they were doing. I was somewhat naive when it came to collection agencies.
When was the contract signed -- or check written, if for a bad check? Rent was for tenancy in 2005, check was written almost a year ago at this point. I was never notified that it bounced.
What is he referring to as a collection fee and why? I'm referring to the charges initially added to the debt as a collection fee because that is what the collection agency called it.

But frankly I don't think the OP really wants help -- he wants to gripe. We shall see.

You would be wrong. By the tone of your original reply, it seemed that you weren't going to help whether someone was asking for it or not...

DC

I hope this clears the issue up a little bit.

My case rests on the facts that the collection agency has ignored or violated parts of the FDCPA. They also have not followed UT law in regards to the returned check fee and the added collection fees. I called the court and they had not filed the complaint with the court yet, though it was suggested that I file a response regardless, just to make sure i'm covered. I'd like to not have to get legal counsel unless they move forward with this into the courts.

Is there a specific type of response that is necessary, or do I just wrte a letter? Or do I just need to talk to a lawyer? Obviously, I'd like to not spend money on legal counsel unless I really need to...

 

[TigerD]

Debt is for rent. Advanced Credit Management, a collection agency, is trying to collect.

FDCPA does apply.

original debt is $1187 for the rent and late fees owed. collection agency added around $600 to this price and called it "collection fees." bringing the total to around $1800. Then, when I did send a check for $200 to begin payment(that bounced through my neglect), they asked for triple the amount of the check in returned check fees.

Okay, if the lease calls for the addition of collection fees then you may have to pay them, but I'd question the amount. That may require a trip to court.

As for the check -- No. They don't get to add $400 in fees over a bad check. You need to talk to a NACA attorney. They are really stretching.

You need to start with a letter that simply says:

I dispute the amount of this debt. I only owe $1187. If you include a check for $1187, you will find your case is much better.

DC

 

[kjvoodoo]

FDCPA does apply.


Okay, if the lease calls for the addition of collection fees then you may have to pay them, but I'd question the amount. That may require a trip to court.

As for the check -- No. They don't get to add $400 in fees over a bad check. You need to talk to a NACA attorney. They are really stretching.

You need to start with a letter that simply says:

I dispute the amount of this debt. I only owe $1187. If you include a check for $1187, you will find your case is much better.

DC

Thanks, 2 questions. what does NACA stand for?

When I send the letter, is it not wise to mention the FDCPA and UT laws? or just leave it at that unless it goes further?

 

[TigerD]

NACA - naca.net

You don't need to mention the laws. The least informed consumer standard is a little blown when you start quoting legal citations.


DC

 

[Debt Guy]

NACA -- National Association of Consumer Advocates -- www.naca.net

An organization of attorneys who specialize in representing consumers in matters related to debt collection and FDCPA/FCRA violations.

If you truly have an FDCPA violation and can prove the violation, then it is possible you could get a NACA attorney to take your case on contingency. The FDCPA provides for award of your attorney fees.

At least talk to an attorney and get a better feel for what you've got as a case.

 

[Texas Pooh]

I dispute the amount of this debt. I only owe $1187. If you include a check for $1187, you will find your case is much better.

Excellent advice.

Even assuming that the FCDPA and/or UT law applies, and assuming further that either has been violated, neither is going to prevent the collection of the original debt, attorney's fees, interest and fees (especially where these fees, charges and interest are set out in a contract signed by debtor) unless any particular interest rate or fee is specified as illegal under a specific state law. For example, the UT law cited by OP specifically holds that if the required notice is not sent, the person who received the check can't collect any fees, but still gets to collect the amount of the bounced check.

There seems to be a common misperception on many of these forums that violation of the FCDPA somehow is a defense to a valid debt. It is not. A violation of the FCDPA results, at best, in a civil fine against the credit collection agency that is collecting the debt. If the debt has been sold to the collector, than there is an offset, but the debt is still valid and owing. Similarly, violations of the FCDPA do not stop a lawsuit once litigation has been started. Finally, of course, while debtors are asserting FCDPA issues (and seeking validation), interest and attorneys' fees continue to add up, often very, very quickly.

It is true that asking for verification and/or alleging FCDPA violations often causes a credit collecting agency as a practical matter to "back off", either because they can't properly support the debt and/or have easier fish to fry. I'm not suggesting anyone here not take those steps if the situation applies.

I am, however, suggesting that everyone be very, very clear that it's not going to change the validity of the original debt when the original debt is valid and the SOL has not expired. I'm also suggesting that FCDPA not be confused with litigation and appropriate defenses available in litigation.