Is this a violation?

[powers64]

HI:

 

I received (inadequately generic) validation from a collection agency. The envelope the information was sent in was the name of a law firm (i believe it is a lawyer who owns the collection agency).

 

The letter was on the collection agency letterhead and there was no mention of the law firm/lawyer in the letter.

 

The letter was a very brief "here is the validation you requested, please contact us so we can arrange for payments." The letter itself was very innocuous and non-threatening with no mention of anything legal, however, at the top of the letter it stated:

"re: liberty acquisitions v. powers64".

 

Does having an envelope from a lawfirm, then using the 'company v. company' imply legal action?

 

Here are excerpts from the colorado fair debt collection law (i highlighted the sections i have questions about):

12-14-107 False or misleading representations.

(1) A debt collector or collection agency shall not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt, including, but not limited to, the following conduct:

(a) The false representation or implication that the debt collector or collection agency is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States government or any state government, including the use of any misleading name, badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof;

( b )

The false representation of:

(I) The character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(II) Any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt;

© The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney;

7

(d) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or in the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector, collection agency, or creditor intends to take such action;

(e) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken;

(note: the debt is beyond the

SOL

)

(f) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to:

(I) Lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

(II) Become subject to any practice prohibited by this article;

(g) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime;

(h) The false representation or implication that the consumer has engaged in any disgraceful conduct;

(i) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed;

(j) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any state or which creates a false or misleading impression as to

its

source, authorization, or approval;

(k) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer;

(l) Except as otherwise provided for communications to acquire location information under section 12-14-104, the failure to disclose clearly, in the initial written communication made to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer and also, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in the initial oral communication, that the debt collector or collection agency is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and, in subsequent communications, that the communication is from a debt collector or collection agency; except that this paragraph (l) shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action;

(m) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value;

(n) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process;

 

(o) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the collection agency's business, company, or organization;

(p) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer;

(q) The false representation or implication that a debt collector or collection agency operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency.

Thanks!

Edited September 4, 2008 by powers64

[pryan67]

is the "law firm" really the CA under a different name?

 

Have they been notified of the SOL situation?

[powers64]

is the "law firm" really the CA under a different name?

 

Have they been notified of the SOL situation?

 

It seems like the law firm/lawyer might really be a CA, but i don't know how to tell for sure. He is listed on the Colorado Bar Association website and 'collections' is his only area of practice. He has no website for his lawfirm. The collection agency is a licensed CA, but the lawfirm is not licensed as a CA with the state of colorado.

 

They have not been notified about SOL. i originally sent request for validation before i knew about SOL. The validation they sent is really generic, but it does include a generic printout (not from the OC) that lists the name of the OC, the account number and the date it was charged off as June 2005.

 

I was planning to send WhyChat's SOL letter, but was wondering if i should add 2 disclaimers: one indicating that the validation was insufficient and therefore the supposed debt is still disputed and another (if true) indicating that the type of mailing was a violation.

 

Another side note, i did see this post that indicates they may be inclined to sue on old debts and argue for a longer SOL. I also looked on the denver court site and it seems that they have sued many for far smaller amounts, so i would like to make sure that i am covered on as many fronts as possible to make this go away.

 

Their validation included:

1) the letter (requesting 28K about 2x the amount that the original creditor supposedly charged off and about 4x the amount of my original credit limit - $7500)

2) a generic print out with my name/account number/amount the original creditor supposedly charged off -$17.5

3) 2 different 'bill of sales' which are not account specific, but generically indicate the 'chain of custody of the debt' basically metris/direct merchant sold accounts to them....but there is nothing about my account.

4) print outs off the web of the generic credit card agreement

Edited September 4, 2008 by powers64

[powers64]

bump

[pryan67]

if you're certain it's out of SOL, I would include that...

 

how have the courts ruled on the longer SOL in your state?

[powers64]

how have the courts ruled on the longer SOL in your state?

 

hmm..i don't know how to find that. I have found a couple places to search cases, but they require a name or case number. Nothing that allows a keyword search.

 

Do you know of anyplace i can search?

 

Otherwise, the web seems equally divided on the matter, but no one cites cases specific to credit cards and/or open accounts.

 

The divide seems to be whether credit cards are covered by the UCC (and therefore covered under C.R.S. 13.80.101) or are an exception and covered by C.R. S. 13.80.103.5

 

13-80-101. General limitation of actions - three years.

(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter:

(a) All contract actions, including personal contracts and actions under the "Uniform Commercial Code", except as otherwise provided in section 13-80-103.5;

 

If I understand WhyChat's position, it is that TILA § 15 defines a credit card account as an "open account", but i am having trouble looping that back around to find anything in the Colorado Statutes that indicate open accounts are covered by the 3-year statute rather than the 6-year.

 

I may be spending the weekend reading the UCCC and C.R.S.

 

Any thoughts or direction would be greatly appreciated. Most of the accounts on my report are SOL if it is 3 years and not SOL if it is six.

 

Thanks!

Edited September 5, 2008 by powers64

[powers64]

friendly bump.

[longhair]

Better yet, check PACER and see if there are any suits and pending suits against the lawyer and CA. Soemone might have already poped them, if so, copy the suit, change the details and SUE SUE SUE