• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Collection company refuses to stop calling

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

kayak99

Member
How is a debt collector not professional? All they did was buy a debt? They didn't rent the apartment, nor drop the ball.

Or, is it simply that you all dropped the ball, so now they're the bad guys. I get it.:rolleyes:
You mean I can buy a phony debt in your name, harrass you and be the good guy?

Please read the posts completely then go back to dog grooming rather than pretending to offer legal advise.
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Where did I say I did not request the deposit back? We were informed by them they were not returning it and they were wanting more. In other words, we could sue them, but the cost of doing taht exceeded the deposit we lost. Please read the posts before you spout.
Let me rephrase for the people in the right hand lane. You did NOT attempt to recover the deposit using the available legal means. By not doing that, you acknowledge and agree that your son DID cause damages.
 

kayak99

Member
If that's what you need to do to get the money you owe ... but there probably are better ways, try a second job.

Yes. Exactly. When you don't pay your bills, we come around. Professionalism would be your taking responsibility to handle the situation correctly prior to creating a situation where you sob about the mean collectors that are collecting the money you owe.

DC
If the bill was owed, it would bave been paid. We discussed the matter with the rental company. Had it been legit they should have sued us. They did not, they simply sold the debt to a bloodsucker type group that seems to enjoy harrassing women.

I do wish to thank those who offered legal advise and a method of proceeding. Those of you non-lawyers who get their jollies by offering ****house advice should be ashamed.
 
Last edited:

kayak99

Member
Let me rephrase for the people in the right hand lane. You did NOT attempt to recover the deposit using the available legal means. By not doing that, you acknowledge and agree that your son DID cause damages.
That is NOT TRUE. Why would we spend more money than the deposit to get it back?

Why would a non-action cause an action?

What country do you live in? Here people are NOT guilty until proven guilty.

And, your profession is?
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
That is NOT TRUE. Why would we spend more money than the deposit to get it back?

Why would a non-action cause an action?

What country do you live in? Here people are NOT guilty until proven guilty.

And, your profession is?

Tell you what...why don't you post, word for word, exactly what you would like to hear. I will then post that answer for you.
 

kayak99

Member
Tell you what...why don't you post, word for word, exactly what you would like to hear. I will then post that answer for you.
Tell you what, why don't you answer the questions you are avoiding. I think it would be interesting to know on what you base your "answers". Are they based on conjucture, google, or actual law? Are they legal opinions or just bull****?

Why would a non-action cause an action?

What country do you live in? Here people are NOT guilty until proven guilty.

And, your profession is?
 
Last edited:

moburkes

Senior Member
That is NOT TRUE. Why would we spend more money than the deposit to get it back?

Why would a non-action cause an action?

What country do you live in? Here people are NOT guilty until proven guilty.

And, your profession is?
You wouldn't, generally. The costs of the lawsuit can be recovered.
 

kayak99

Member
As I said before - please post, word for word, the answer you'd like to hear. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Other than that, I'm done here. Have fun and enjoy the dings on your credit.
No source? Just as I thought all wind, no substance.


Please don't help too many people for they probably can't afford it. Please don't worry about dings on my credit. One hardly makes a difference. But then of course you would not comprehend that concept.




You wouldn't, generally. The costs of the lawsuit can be recovered.

The reason states are required to be posted on this site is because laws differ from state to state. Legal costs cannot be recovered in Pennsylvania. Of course you seem to have no legal background either.


One decent answer out of this entire topic. Lord help us all.
 
Last edited:

moburkes

Senior Member
No source? Just as I thought all wind, no substance.


Please don't help too many people for they probably can't afford it. Please don't worry about dings on my credit. One hardly makes a difference. But then of course you would not comprehend that concept.







The reason states are required to be posted on this site is because laws differ from state to state. Legal costs cannot be recovered in Pennsylvania. Of course you seem to have no legal background either.


One decent answer out of this entire topic. Lord help us all.
I'd LOVE for you to post that cite.
Edit: In a 7 second google search, I found information that contradicts your claim. So, now I'm REALLY eager to see that cite.
 
Last edited:

TigerD

Senior Member
Kindy cite your source.
Well, lets take you on a tour of the legal system as it grew from its roots in English common law. Actually, we aren't really going to delve very deep, but you can do further research if you wish. Going back to the days of Sir Thomas Moore a generally accepted principle of law is: Silence gives consent.

From A Man for All Seasons: "The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent"."

Also from Lectlaw.com:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s156.htm
SILENCE - The state of a person who does not speak, or of one who refrains from speaking.

Pure and simple silence cannot be considered as a consent to a contract, except in cases when the silent person is bound in good faith to explain himself, in which case, silence gives consent. But no assent will be inferred from a man's silence, unless, 1st. He knows his rights and knows what he is doing and, 2d. His silence is voluntary.

When any person is accused of a crime, or charged with any fact, and he does not deny it, in general, the presumption is very strong that the charge is correct.

The rule does not extend to the silence of a prisoner, when on his exanination before a magistrate he is charged by another prisoner with having joined him in the commission of an offence.

When an oath is administered to a witness, instead of expressly promising to keep it, he gives his assent by his silence, and kissing the book.

The person to be affected by the silence must be one not disqualified to act as non compos, an infant, or the like, for even the express promise of such a person would not bind him to the performance of any contract.

The rule of the civil law is that silence is not an acknowledgment or denial in every case, qui tacet, non utique fatetur: sed tamen verum est, eum non negaro.
--b--
Now, that is rather difficult to understand. So to make it easier on everyone: What answer did you want? Someone will be glad to parrot it back.

DC
 

kayak99

Member
Facinating how non-legal scholars find google to be their legal basis.

Nothing you last two posters claim has any legal basis in fact.

Our laws are not based on ancient "generally accepted principles of law" but then again my degrees are not in law. Are yours?

As far as your obscureclaim of "silence" being any sort of factor, you forget that we have protested the holding of the initial deposit . That we have not sued for its return do to the greater expense is not addressed in your fantasy.

Maybe you two should increase your knowledge. The comedy Boston Legal is on Tueday nights. Might be a step up for you. After all, they have PAID legal consultants to check their facts.
 

JustAPal00

Senior Member
"They" being the collection company located in Malvern, PA. I sincerely doubt they will be filing in Altoona, a distance of 300 miles away.
It's not nearly that far, it's 300 miles from Philly to Pittsburgh! In fact it's 213 miles from Malvern to Altoona.


If they do file against us, I understand I am able to harrassment charges against them in Western PA.

Who on earth told you that you could file harrassment charges for them suing you in court?

You really have no idea how it works, do you? In PA the LL has 30 days to return your deposit along with an itemized list of any charges being deducted from the deposit. In your case the damages were greater than the deposit, thus you got no refund. In fact they wanted more from you and sent you a bill. You refused to pay it so they turned it over to a collection agency. Now the agency has the task of trying to collect this debt.

We were informed by them they were not returning it and they were wanting more. In other words, we could sue them, but the cost of doing taht exceeded the deposit we lost. Please read the posts before you spout.
Where on earth did you get the idea that it would be expensive to sue? It cost a little over $70 at the magistrate, and if you win you get it back! The problem you have is that you chose the "ostrich defense" and now it's going to cost you.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top