Lima Bean

Hey to the board. Don't post much, but I do stay in touch from time to time with the credit world. While researching something completely separate from credit, I came across this blog post that might be useful to someone out there. I apologize in advance if it's posted in another thread, I did not do a search prior to posting. Complete story can be read here at this URL: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/11/...court-says.html LB

Wonder if these are the codes (Metro 2 ??) people have been looking for? No, it's not Metro. They got pulled from the internet, but i got it saved to my computer before that, hehe. The E-oscar codes are the top secret ones if i remember. Hey jack1212 - you might be correct in that assumption. I have the same Metro 2 paper that you do (saved from '07 during my little collection issue) that has the codes as well, but the two letter codes are not the same as that. I know nothing about E Oscars, so I can't really make any time of knowledgable comment on that. LB I understand. And thanks for this post. You're welcome. I've enjoyed following your posts on the collection agencies and how to attack them. LB

Jack - my impression is that this particular agency is not all of a sudden taking DV/lawsuits seriously. I get the distinct feeling from the paperwork that it is standard operating procedure between them and their insurance carrier and bonding agent. Perhaps a higher percentage of debtors who ask for DV actually initiate lawsuits, and therefore the insurance carrier demands from the collection agency that they (insurance agency) be notified when an account DV's or threatens suit? I have no idea, its pure speculation on my part, but it is definately part of everyday life for this particular collection agency. Thanks, LB Edited to add - I agree with Jack and stand by my earlier comment that those who threaten to sue, by all means, go ahead and do so. I know we all get frustrated and talk trash from time to time because this can get so frustrating, but I am getting the feeling that collection agencies do not like to be put on the defensive by knowledgable folks. What I mean by being on the defensive is when a person says enough and is enough and takes the fight to the collection agency rather than waiting around for the collection agency to sue them first. Just my thoughts. LB

Wonder if these are the codes (Metro 2 ??) people have been looking for? No, it's not Metro. They got pulled from the internet, but i got it saved to my computer before that, hehe. The E-oscar codes are the top secret ones if i remember. Hey jack1212 - you might be correct in that assumption. I have the same Metro 2 paper that you do (saved from '07 during my little collection issue) that has the codes as well, but the two letter codes are not the same as that. I know nothing about E Oscars, so I can't really make any time of knowledgable comment on that. LB

Wonder if these are the codes (Metro 2 ??) people have been looking for? Hello EarnIt - I don't pretend to know if they are or not, but I hope they are?!? Each file does have a series of these two letter codes attached to it, and each file does share some common codes and then some files have codes other do not. I was thinking it might be interesting to look through the files and see if I can find any common factors with the files that have the common codes. Thanks, LB

Thanks Help-Down-n-out. I feel like and have been told that I have, taken appropriate steps to CYA. However, we are a lawsuit happy nation so how can any of us ultimately know who might want to drop the hammer on us for what reasons? I can easily see a situation where the collection agency might scream out - HEY, we messed it up to begin with, but no one would have known about us screwing up if Lima Bean hadn't tipped anyone off - LB

Hello penone - the attorney I worked with on this is going to handle the contacting. I do know who he intends to contact, however I don't think it would be appropriate to comment on that at this time. Thanks for your interest. LB

Greetings to creditboards members: Outside of an incident in late '07 that I asked advice on from the community, I haven't participated in discussions here at creditboards. I still visit frequently and read the posts, but I just haven't had anything specific to add to or comment that others have not said. Perhaps I can contribute back to the community with the following personal experience that I am now engaged in: I have recently come into direct possession of what I can only describe as sensitive information between a credit collection agency and it's insurer that neither party would want exposed. How this information came into my direct possession I will not disclose at this time other than to say that it came to me directly without the intervention of any third party. There is nothing illegal about how it found its way to me, and I did not ask for this information, no one would know that I was interested in this subject matter. The information in question is what is important: the complete files on a number of debtors that a particular credit collection company is currently collecting upon. When I say complete, I mean complete debtor information: --Names --Addresses --Previous Addresses --Telephone Numbers --SSN's (ouch) --Creditor Information --Account Numbers --Account Balances --Account Payment Histories --Internal Reference Numbers --Collection Notes, including dates and times, comments and debtor responses --Copies of correspondance between the debtors and the collection agency --Collection codes - which I have no idea are as they are just two letter coding. It would be interesting to know what they are, though. I will honestly tell you that I have looked at every file sent to me. Some are thick, some are thin. Each file shares two common traits with all the other files: 1) they are what would be considered debts claimed to be owed to a particular industry; and 2) they are accounts the debtors are disputing. Here are my observations from looking over the information: --An awful lot of zombie debt is being attempted to collect on, and in some instances the OC is either recalling (is that even possible?) old debt or has been keeping old debt on its plate for whatever reason. I am still researching this particular CA, so I do not have an answer yet if they engage in JDB. I am inclined to say that they are a pure collection agency, but don't hold me to that. --All of these debtors communicated with the CA at some point on the telephone numerous times. --A significant portion of those people communicating directly with credit collection agencies are shooting themselves in the foot and unwittingly admiting they actually owe the debt they are attempting to dispute or validate. -Too many people who dispute their debts are using cookie-cutter templates. 93% of the files use template letters available here and at other credit resource websites. --All but one of the dispute or validation letters were hand signed. --This particular credit collection agency either takes formal requests for validation and the dispute process seriously - or they are required by their insurer that they inform the insurance company/bonding agents that they have a possible legal action against them pending. --Not only is your personal information held and used by the credit collection agency, it is shared across the board with affiliates and or partners of the credit collection agency. Affiliates means that there is a possibility that any person or company the credit collection agency does business with may at some point in time end up with some portion of your information. --Over half the disputes were not sent CMRRR. It's clear this particular company did receive and does keep all of the correspondance, as they not only photocopy the letter itself, but the envelope itself plus ANY other correspdance sent to them. Question is, would any of those non-CMRRR correspondance ever show up in a discovery or court action? --Debtors feel a need to send in every scrap of paper they can to support their position. One particular file had redacted bank account statements and bank correspondance enclosed with it. One file showed a person claiming a debt as not theirs but sent supporting bank statements that clearly show paying monthly bills to the OC trying to collect a past due debt through the credit collection agency. I can clearly see how in a case like that a credit collection agency would be skeptical about a debtors claim of not knowing about an account. It is also clear to me from what I have seen in the individual files that folks are wasting their time and hurting themselves by sending in supporting paperwork - the credit collection agency does not care what happened between you and the OC, they are clearly going to collect the amount of the account due or owned to them as stated by the OC, and the only way they will not collect that amount is if the OC tells them differently. --To this particular company, and probably to the other CA's, you are not a person or individual with extenuating circumstances, you are merely a case number or a reference number. They have completely removed the human element from their business practices and have reduced you to nothing but comments in the notes field. --A lot of these files showed the debtors at some point as SKIP. The agency was able to pick them back up at some point in time and resume the collection activity. Whether they have the correct debtor or not, I make no judgment. I do notice however that the address changed after the SKIP notations. Before I close out this post I would like to offer a couple personal viewpoints here based upon what I see: I think each of us needs to adopt a mind set that our personal privacy and personal data is going to be compromised at some point. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN. Our data is being passed around like a candy dish, and sooner rather than later incidents such as this are what is going to be the outcome. I believe I have been diligent, respectful and careful with fell onto my plate, will the next guy or gal be the same? The central question at that point would be, have I done all I can to mitigate the damages caused by the loss of my privacy? The second thought is that I read a lot of people on these boards and others who huff and puff and blow the house down about suing this collection agency or that collection agency. Now this might sound arrogant or might offend veterans of these boards, but here it is: SH*T or get off the toilet if you shout SUE. It is clear to me that this particular agency takes validation requests and disputes as a potential lawsuit. Heck, there are notations everywhere in the files and letters stating that very potential. If all you good folks out there would follow through and actually carry-out on your threats, I have a distinct feeling that the behavior of credit collection agencies could be altered or tipped to favor the debtor more. I would be happy to answer any questions that I can. Obivously, I am not going to reveal any personal data, and as I mentioned earlier, I am not going to name the company at this time. I would like to say the following - please do not point out the obvious that there is a potential legal land mine here. I have taken what I believe to be very prudent steps legally, including appropriate legal consultation with attornies who handle this subject matter. I take this matter seriously, but at the same time believe there is a benefit to the members here from this experience. Should anyone think that this is a Friday post early, you are free to your opinions, but please note that I have consulted with a couple of what I feel are knowledgable members on whether to even post this experience. I will leave it up to those folks if they wish to step forward and vouch for me. Lima Bean

Lima Bean checking in and wanting the opinion(s) of you veteran CB'ers on a question that keeps running in my mind. I hope I don't muddy the waters with my explanation -- Consumer applies for, is accepted and is issued a credit card from Credit Card Company Consumer uses CL from CCC. At some point in time, Consumer defaults and CCC charges-off CC debt. CCC then sells debt to a Collection Agency CA then begins the process of collection Pretty standard beginnings. Now comes my question(s) -- 1. If the CC turns the debt over to a Collection Agency for collection, then that would be an assignment of the debt for the purpose of collection, no issues there. 2. But does the original selling of a debt from the CCC to a Junk Debt Buyer actually make the buyer of said debt an assignee of the CCC, or a purchaser of something? 2. If the selling of the debt does make the original buyer an assignee, then what happens if the original assignee, after failing to collect on the original debt, then sells the debt to a second JDB? Does that make the second buyer of the debt an assignee of the first JDB, or an assignee of the OC? Or are they merely a purchaser of something? Here is why I am asking -- in my little ongoing battle with Asset, their General Counsel makes the claim that I defaulted on a First Premier Bank credit card on September 23, 2001. GC further claims that they, Asset Acceptance Corp., BOUGHT the debt from FPB on April 12, 2004. Now, I am no expert, but learning quickly in this credit thing, so it strikes me as going against all accounting and banking rules, standards, policies, whatever you will that FPB or any CC issuer would let a debt sit on the books for 2.5 years before disposing, selling, assigning or whatever you want to call it. That being said, is it reasonable to suggest that this alleged debt was wandering in the wilderness for 2.5 years before Asset picked it up, and do these JDB'ers hang onto this stuff for years at a time? Does anyone know the answer to this -- when debts are bought and sold, do they come with some type of formal "sales agreement" between the parties? I would be quite interested in seeing the paperwork on a junk debt exchange. Lima Bean

Hey Frisbee, good to see your comments again. My first round of disputes with the credit bureaus are on their way. I guess what I am leaning towards is seeing if Asset verifies with the CRA's. Should they do so, and FPB does indeed cough up the letter stating that the account Asset is attempting to collect on is not mine, then at that point Mr. Stocich, Esq. will take over and deal directly with their General Councel in response to the letter sent to me. Whatever does continue to take place, I am beyond annoyed at this point. If you or anyone else sees a flaw with my reasoning, by all means, I welcome all comments. Lima Bean

I cannot believe I missed this part. You need to DV them now, and see what happens. Hopefully they will be stupid enough to ignore you, and you already sound like you know a lawyer. Mahler -- they actually did respond with that funky company letterhead everyone talks about. You are absolutely correct, I have a great lawyer who is advising and whose practice is based on Business and Contract law. For what it's worth, my attorney echoes what this community is continually stating -- dealing with salamanders (uhm, thats a direct quote from him, not my choice of words) means documentation, documentation and more documentation. It will be quite interesting to see what he says about the General Counsel letter I recieved. This is a great place to learn, appreciate your comments. Lima Bean, who is still perplexed by it all.

Junk, this is exactly what they did. And they upped the account amount $200 to boot.

Not that this situation is unique or anything to the community, but here is an update on this Asset nonsense for those who might find themselves in similar situations -- I sent the CMRRR letter to Asset in my own words, which was polite but straight-forward -- told them to "show me what you got and how you got it." There is no corresponding account at any of the credit bureaus. What I mean by this is that Asset is reporting directly to the CRA's that there is an account under my name with them that they are collecting. Asset responds on company letterhead with the usual nonsense -- "hey buddy, you owe First Premier Bank for a charged off credit card." Thats news to me. Also, the amount they alledge I owe them has now gone up to $983, a full $200 dollars over what they are reporting. After much searching, I am able to come up with a number and address for First Premier Bank. Give them a call, they tell me "well, uh, we can't help you with that, because our records show that account belonging to someone else. They also state that they are not responsible for the manner in which Asset is reporting the account. Probably correct on that point, as again, First Premier is not reporting anything under my name on my CR's. FPB agrees to send me a letter stating that I am not the owner of the account number that Asset is trying to collect against me. I then follow up with FPB with a letter recounting the conversation as well as what has taken place to that point, and remind them to forward me the letter as they agreed to. I fire off another letter to Asset in not so nice terms demanding that they prove their claim. No threats, no nonsense. I just demand they prove their claim. Today, (Tuesday, October 30, 2007) I get in the mail a letter from Asset's General Counsel that if I feel that I do not owe them $1,083 ( WTF -- the amount has gone up another $100 in a week) then prove to THEM that I do not have a charged-off First Premier account. At this point, all I can say is that the fights on. Also, everything I have been reading leans toward the CA's being unresponsive. All I can say is that in about 3 weeks time I have some pretty good documentation going on. Is it just me, or does this entire situation sound whacked? Or is this norm for this stuff? Call me ignorant if you like, but I have never had to deal with anything like this in my 46 years. One very perplexed Lima Bean.

Frisbee, thanks for the response, appreciate it greatly. Any thoughts on if the CA can wiggle out with the bona fide error excuse if the information they reported created a higher cost of credit to the consumer?

I cannot believe I missed this part. You need to DV them now, and see what happens. Hopefully they will be stupid enough to ignore you, and you already sound like you know a lawyer. They'll invariably respond with their standard bogus "validation" printed out on their letterhead from their computer. This exact scenario with the "validation" is the reason why I was wondering if anyone had just gone ahead and filed suit instead of going the usual route of validation and having the sleeping giant awake, so to speak and then have to jump through all of the hoops. As Frisbee noted, there are consequences from this as documented in the financing papers which included a statement that I did not obtain the best financing rate due to my credit report. So let me toss this out there -- does the claim of a "bona fide error" on the part of a CA that results in a higher cost of credit to the consumer go without consequence if that CA is hauled into court to explain the account and the court tosses out the suit?