Creditors calling for tuition I am not responsible for? I was forced to put my card

[Jeran]

The OP has already said that he thinks he does not owe this debt and that school made a mistake, a billing error. In my opinion, he has the right to get more information about this debt, in writing, from both the school and the third party debt collector. In situations like these, it is very important to have a paper trail, to have it in writing.

If someone called me on the phone and accused me of owing over $3000 to them, I would know that I have a right to dispute it and ask for written verification of the debt. I would know that they have to be able to prove that I owe the debt before I would voluntarily pay them even one penny.

Unfortunately, the OP didn't know this when they called him on the phone and coerced him into making a payment to them. This is one of the main reasons, in my opinion, it is best to never talk to a debt collector on the phone. You can see what happened to the OP when he made the mistake of talking to a debt collector on the phone.


"§ 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."


The OP is under the impression that he must talk to them on the phone, but let me just quote the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to clear this up for him...

"§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c]
(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;

(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or

(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.

(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

(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.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

(d) For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator."



The debt collectors appear to have already violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in several respects, such as...

"806. Harassment or abuse [15 USC 1692d]
A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt..."

The OP is afraid of being harassed on the phone by these people.

"807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e]
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt...."

They have done a good job of scaring the OP debtor into believing that not paying his debt may result in some sort of criminal charges being filed against the debtor. Not paying a debt is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.


I encourage everyone to read, in plain English, what the Federal government says about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act...

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0149-debt-collection

Don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself. Educate yourself about it.

 

[iqjump123]

now i have a clue

thanks everybody for the help. I have found some things to read and educate myself on, and figured out some immediate damage control steps now. I will keep everybody posted.

FYI- to the people who think that the original charge might be my mistake- I know with 100% certainty that I am not responsible for it, because the nature of this program I participated was grant-funded. Infact, I was actually paid a stipend for participating.

sam

 

[justalayman]

I know with 100% certainty that I am not responsible for it, because the nature of this program I participated was grant-funded. Infact, I was actually paid a stipend for participating.

sam

you can be paid a stipend and still be required to pay school fees. The stipend is based on a departmental program while the school fees are for attending the school. If by "grant funded" you mean the activity of the department was covered under a grant, again, that does not mean you were not required to pay tuition to the school for this period. While it may be an error by the school, based on what you have said, it may also be your error in understanding the system in place.

 

[justalayman]

Jeran;3239288]The OP has already said that he thinks he does not owe this debt and that school made a mistake, a billing error. In my opinion, he has the right to get more information about this debt, in writing, from both the school and the third party debt collector. In situations like these, it is very important to have a paper trail, to have it in writing.

you are really misunderstanding what validation of a debt is. In simple terms; a debt collector is required to contact the original creditor and ask; is this sams's debt? and if so, what is the accurate amount of debt.

Once the OC provides that, the debt has been validated.

If someone called me on the phone and accused me of owing over $3000 to them, I would know that I have a right to dispute it and ask for written verification of the debt. I would know that they have to be able to prove that I owe the debt before I would voluntarily pay them even one penny.

again, you are misunderstanding what validation is. It is not proving a debt is valid. It is simply the OC stating the debt is valid.

The OP is under the impression that he must talk to them on the phone, but let me just quote the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to clear this up for him...

he does not have to talk to them on the phone but he cannot issue a limited cease and decease demand as you suggested stating the CA is only allowed to contact him via written means.

The debt collectors appear to have already violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in several respects, such as...

"806. Harassment or abuse [15 USC 1692d]
A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt..."

The OP is afraid of being harassed on the phone by these people.

and? The OP's rights are to sue for the violation. OP must understand a violation of the FDCPA does not alter the underlying issue: the debt he owes, or may owe, to the creditor. They are separate issues.

They have done a good job of scaring the OP debtor into believing that not paying his debt may result in some sort of criminal charges being filed against the debtor. Not paying a debt is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

I agree but again, what does that have to do with the underlying debt? nothing.

 

[Jeran]

thanks everybody for the help. I have found some things to read and educate myself on, and figured out some immediate damage control steps now. I will keep everybody posted.

FYI- to the people who think that the original charge might be my mistake- I know with 100% certainty that I am not responsible for it, because the nature of this program I participated was grant-funded. Infact, I was actually paid a stipend for participating.

sam

See people? It was a billing error.

That is why the FDCPA has the provision for people to dispute the validity of the debt and to demand written verification from the third party debt collector.

Now, to go back to one of the earlier comments from one of the other posters who said it was illegal to tape record telephone calls, New York is a one-party state....

"New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents."

As long as one person-- the OP-- knows and consents to the call, it is legal to record the call. Arizona is also a one-party state. But, to be fair, I always say out loud in a very clear voice the following phrase when I am recording a telephone call, and I get this phrase on tape at the very beginning of the phone call as soon as the debt collector starts speaking-- "I am tape recording this phone call." Sometimes debt collectors hang up the phone immediately, other times they proceed. I don't have to say that phrase, but if it ever came up in court, I have that phrase on my tape recorded phone call to play back for the judge. It is one extra layer of protection. Google Voice has an automatic voice come on as soon as you press 4 on your phone and start recording which says in a clear voice: "This call is now being recorded." I still go ahead and say my phrase anyways, just make sure they heard it

 

[justalayman]

Jeran;3239312]See people? It was a billing error.

where do you see anything any different there than what has already been posted? The OP believes it to be a charge in error. So far, apparently the school does not agree.

That is why the FDCPA has the provision for people to dispute the validity of the debt and to demand written verification from the third party debt collector.

I guess you missed this:

I of course called the college U and complained, and it seems that there will be some finger pointing amongst themselves, with me in the middle. Aside from college politics, the conclusion is that I fear that it will college U much longer than I hope to get their **** together.

Not seeing that as anything definitive regarding the debt being valid, or not valid (in regards to the actual debt, not the validity issue the CA is concerned with). Regarding the validity for the purposes of the CA, I'm not seeing anything stating the school would not validate the debt as things stand.

Now, to go back to one of the earlier comments from one of the other posters who said it was illegal to tape record telephone calls, New York is a one-party state....

"New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents."

where is the CA located? Where the other party is will also be required to be known. Additionally, since phones fall under federal jurisdiction for many purposes, the fed law is important as well.

 

[Jeran]

Oh, and I should also add that I only record telephone calls when someone calls me. I never record calls when I call someone else.

Google Voice is set up that way, too. It only records when someone calls you, not when you use Google Voice to call someone else.

But then, I NEVER call debt collectors.

They are the ones who call me, and like I said, they are immediately made aware that I am recording their phone call to me, and it is then their choice to either hang up on me or to continue speaking to me, knowing that I am recording everything they say to me.

And P.S.-- I should add that every time a debt collector has called me on the phone, they have told me they are recording the phone call to me, so if they can record the call, so can I.

 

[justalayman]

Jeran;3239329]Oh, and I should also add that I only record telephone calls when someone calls me. I never record calls when I call someone else.

Google Voice is set up that way, too. It only records when someone calls you, not when you use Google Voice to call someone else.

But then, I NEVER call debt collectors.

Who calls whom is irrelevant.

They are the ones who call me,

that speaks volumes about you Jeran. Maybe if you would pay your bills, you wouldn't have to worry about issues like this.

And P.S.-- I should add that every time a debt collector has called me on the phone, they have told me they are recording the phone call to me, so if they can record the call, so can I.

saying they are doesn't mean they really are. I know a lot of CA's that make that statement and they do not have the means to record anybody.

 

[quincy]

Oh, and I should also add that I only record telephone calls when someone calls me. I never record calls when I call someone else.

Google Voice is set up that way, too. It only records when someone calls you, not when you use Google Voice to call someone else.

But then, I NEVER call debt collectors.

They are the ones who call me, and like I said, they are immediately made aware that I am recording their phone call to me, and it is then their choice to either hang up on me or to continue speaking to me, knowing that I am recording everything they say to me.

And P.S.-- I should add that every time a debt collector has called me on the phone, they have told me they are recording the phone call to me, so if they can record the call, so can I.

The Digital Media Law Project has provided good information on recording phone calls and conversations, accessible through the following link:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations.

 

[iqjump123]

more info

Justalayman-

Here is some detail involving this situation.

Like you mentioned, this program I was in was from the college, and it did charge a tuition for some of the classes offered during this program in conjunction to the basic project we were required to finish by the end of the program. The grant given from a sponsor was supposed to be applied to negate the cost fully, but only a portion of tuition was paid from the grant.

The school says the grant wasn't applied fully from an error of the sponsor.
The sponsor says the amount charged is different than mentioned.

Thus my reason stating that the school is pointing fingers.

After a brief review of the FDCPA, what do you guys think about the SOL issue? This was from a debt in 2007 and a few days ago was the first time I heard from any collector company. I know im not responsible, but I am hoping I can come up with something to keep them off my back until this issue is resolved.

btw the CA is located in Ohio.

 

[justalayman]

so it sounds like the debt may be a valid debt to you. Whether the sponsor made full payment or not does not remove your liability for your school fees. It may allow you an avenue to seek compensation from them (whomever is to blame for the issue) but it does not cancel the debt you would owe.



Before doing anything with the collection agency, you should have verified the debt yourself with the school. Then you could act accordingly. You erred in making payment already. If you attempt to cancel the payment, in the end, it may not matter if you actually owe the debt. I do not see where it would be illegal to cancel the payment on the credit card but wait for others to speak to that. I would hate to direct you to do something that would cause you problems.

What you need to do now is deal with the school. If they argue the debt is valid and will not back down, you have a couple choices;

accept their decision and pay the debt
reject their decision and not pay the debt

Obviously if you pay it the matter will be put to rest. If you reject it, then you may end up being sued. Depending on what state the debt was incurred, the statute of limitations may or may not be a viable defense to being sued.

So, what state is the school in?

this is concerning a claimed debt incurred in 2007, correct?

 

[quincy]

NY Attorney General is another, possibly quicker, complaint to make:
http://www.ag.ny.gov/consumer-frauds/Filing-a-Consumer-Complaint

More reading: http://www.ag.ny.gov/feature/debt-settlement-companies

I will also note that the SOL for written contracts is 6 years in NY. 2007 + 6 = uhoh!

This was provided by You Are Guilty on page one of this thread.

 

[justalayman]

This was provided by You Are Guilty on page one of this thread.

when the OP mentioned a CA in Ohio, it caused me to consider the debt was not incurred in New York. If it wasn't, obviously the NY SOL would have limited effect on the matter. If the debt was incurred outside of NY, the laws of NY in general may have no place regarding the matter.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

when the OP mentioned a CA in Ohio, it caused me to consider the debt was not incurred in New York. If it wasn't, obviously the NY SOL would have limited effect on the matter. If the debt was incurred outside of NY, the laws of NY in general may have no place regarding the matter.

However, if I remember correctly from my collection days (gasp), the fact that he made a payment to them, coerced or no, may set this up for rendering the SOL obsolete at this point. MAY... not does, but MAY. Besides which, again, as I remember it... it is 7 years from the date the debt originated... not the calendar year the debt originated. Major difference. Beyond the 7 years, the collection agency may not seek a judgment against the debtor, but may continue collection efforts, as long the debt is taken off of the credit file if requested by the debtor. If the CA has a judgment, whether they are the originating party of the judgment, judgments remain on your credit and active for up to 20 years, unless petitioned, the court to reactivate them after that 20 years.

I am fairly certain I remember all of this correctly.

 

[justalayman]

I too would have to look bit often times, making A payment resets the sol clock on the ability to utilize a court to collect the debt to zero again. No idea what disputing the payment and rescinding it would do to the matter.