Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


Sign in to follow this  

Texas law seems to require CA to Delete if They fail to Respond to DV

The last post in this topic was posted 2102 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

Sorry for missing this question Cprems...

 

I understand there is no 5 day requirement under TFC. Midland blew me off and National Recovery Agency blew me off as well. Asset sent a half-a$$ attempt at validation by sending a bill from SBC, dated about a week before they were bought out by AT&T back in 2005. Sigh. So tired of these games.

 

Everyone is bonded.

 

 

As far as I know there is NO requirement for the 5 day letter under the TFC392. However the CA MUST respond to your DV under TX law. Midland blew you off correct?

 

Did the "validation" from the new law firm come in the 30 days? Are they bonded to collect in Texas?

 

 

 

I'll ask my other question here as well:

 

SubChapter D: Prohibited Debt Collection Methods

 

392.301 - Threats or Coercion

392.302 - Harassement; Abuse

392.303 - Unfair or Unconscionable Means

392.304 - Fraudulent, Deceptive, or Misleading Representations

392.305 - Deceptive Use of Credit Bureau Name

392.306 - Use of Independent Debt Collector

 

 

I determined to be a TFC expert when this is all said and done. I cannot determine, for the life of me, where to tie in dunning and reporting violations.

 

Can someone already fully versed in the TFC, direct me to the section of SubChpt D that specifies requirements of mailing a dunning letter within 5 days or reporting as an open account?Or am I totally confusing the TFC with the FDCPA???

 

Where are the reporting violations outlined?

 

TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fabulous! I know I am adding to a years old thread. But just re-read this little gem and now get what it means! I have a CA trying to collect that isn't bonded, they haven't responded yet(have two more weeks). But if they give me trouble, Dear Boyfriend is an Assistant District Attorney in my county. I'll copy them on a letter to him asking for an investigation, then he'll write a letter agreeing. I'll send a photocopy of that too. problem should get solved rather quickly, don't ya think!

 

I want to comment a little on my experience with the bonding companies and make a coupla points. I dealt with three bonding companies, all large insurance companies. I wrote a specific letter and copied alll correspondance to them on my ITS. I even included a copy of the pleading with them listed as one of the defendants. I also spoke directly with the bond manager in each company. Typically, I received a letter from each company indicating that they had received my claim against the bond and here is a form to fill out for a claim. When speaking with the managers they were suprised I was going to name them as a defendant. When I pointed out that that was allowed by Rule, they said well they had never had that happen before. They did say that they were going to talk to the CA. I never heard back from them and all went on to be settled, no check ever came from the bonding companies. I really dont know if writing the UW helped or whether other parts of my plan were more effective (see my comments below). I certainly don't think it hurt me.

 

I want to point out that it is a violation of TX law for a CA to collect without a bond. It, however, is not a violation you can collect on. I think the proper way to use that is to include a draft letter to the AG asking for an investigation of the CA's activities, including a copy of the pleading and your ITS and pointing out that the CA is harming the citzens of TX by pursuing illegal actions and has no bond. I also want to point out that a careful reading of the TFC and the DTPA indicates that the AG and your county DA have the ability to pursue criminal charges if they investigate. Now these are elected officials. A well crafted draft letter to these fine elected officials, sent to the CA along with your ITS indicating your willingness to ask those fine elected officials to investigate those nasty old CA's who are violating the laws of TX and pointing out that they can get fined rather heavily and have criminal charges against the officers of the CA just might help settle things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick couple of questions!

1. I sent the DV invoking TFC to a handfull of CA's today. About 4 of them share the same UW - Traveler Surety (something like that). I did not send a letter to the UW yet. Should I send a letter to the UW before the original 30 days is up for the CA's?

2. When sending a letter to the UW which a few of the CA's share - is it ok to write the cover letter and lay out that all of the CA's are in violation and they UW all of these CA's and list their individual bond numbers? I hope that made sense lol. Like Dear UW - CA 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have violated TFC - you represent each and their bond numbers are blah blah and attach copies of the letters I sent each CA. Would that work or should I send a different letter to the same UW for each CA?

3. Do you CMRRR to the UW too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashlia,

 

I know we have discussed this before. I wanted to post my opinion of the TFC392 and the ramifications of violating it.

 

A quick read of the TFC392 - bonding requirements -

 

Sec. 392.101. BOND REQUIREMENT. (a) A third-party debt collector or

credit bureau may not engage in debt collection unless the third-party debt collector or

credit bureau has obtained a surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to do

business in this state as prescribed by this section. A copy of the bond must be filed with

the secretary of state.

(B) The bond must be in favor of:

(1) any person who is damaged by a violation of this chapter; and

(2) this state for the benefit of any person who is damaged by a violation

of this chapter.

© The bond must be in the amount of $10,000.

 

And a little light reading further down - Civil remedies

 

Sec. 392.403. CIVIL REMEDIES. (a) A person may sue for:

(1) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a violation of this chapter; and

(2) actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of this chapter.

(B) A person who successfully maintains an action under Subsection (a) is

entitled to attorney's fees reasonably related to the amount of work performed and costs.

© On a finding by a court that an action under this section was brought in bad

faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award the defendant attorney's fees

reasonably related to the work performed and costs.

(d) If the attorney general reasonably believes that a person is violating or is

about to violate this chapter, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of this

state against the person to restrain or enjoin the person from violating this chapter.

(e) A person who successfully maintains an action under this section for

violation of Section 392.101, 392.202, or 392.301(a)(3) is entitled to not less than $100

for each violation of this chapter. - My understanding is this, IF they violated these sections, then they are liable for ALL violations under the TFC392.

 

As you can plainly see in the TFC392 - there IS a private right of action for having NO bond. It is also my belief there is a private right of action against those who violate the TFC392 PERIOD. I wish Walt was still on here to discuss his thinking on the underlined part. It would make for a great topic of conversation.

 

More light reading - Remedies under other law (TXDTPA)

 

Sec. 392.404. REMEDIES UNDER OTHER LAW. (a) A violation of this

chapter is a deceptive trade practice under Subchapter E, Chapter 17, Business &

Commerce Code, and is actionable under that subchapter.

(B) This chapter does not affect or alter a remedy at law or in equity otherwise

available to a debtor, creditor, governmental entity, or other legal entity.

 

 

This is fabulous! I know I am adding to a years old thread. But just re-read this little gem and now get what it means! I have a CA trying to collect that isn't bonded, they haven't responded yet(have two more weeks). But if they give me trouble, Dear Boyfriend is an Assistant District Attorney in my county. I'll copy them on a letter to him asking for an investigation, then he'll write a letter agreeing. I'll send a photocopy of that too. problem should get solved rather quickly, don't ya think!

 

I want to comment a little on my experience with the bonding companies and make a coupla points. I dealt with three bonding companies, all large insurance companies. I wrote a specific letter and copied alll correspondance to them on my ITS. I even included a copy of the pleading with them listed as one of the defendants. I also spoke directly with the bond manager in each company. Typically, I received a letter from each company indicating that they had received my claim against the bond and here is a form to fill out for a claim. When speaking with the managers they were suprised I was going to name them as a defendant. When I pointed out that that was allowed by Rule, they said well they had never had that happen before. They did say that they were going to talk to the CA. I never heard back from them and all went on to be settled, no check ever came from the bonding companies. I really dont know if writing the UW helped or whether other parts of my plan were more effective (see my comments below). I certainly don't think it hurt me.

 

I want to point out that it is a violation of TX law for a CA to collect without a bond. It, however, is not a violation you can collect on. I think the proper way to use that is to include a draft letter to the AG asking for an investigation of the CA's activities, including a copy of the pleading and your ITS and pointing out that the CA is harming the citzens of TX by pursuing illegal actions and has no bond. I also want to point out that a careful reading of the TFC and the DTPA indicates that the AG and your county DA have the ability to pursue criminal charges if they investigate. Now these are elected officials. A well crafted draft letter to these fine elected officials, sent to the CA along with your ITS indicating your willingness to ask those fine elected officials to investigate those nasty old CA's who are violating the laws of TX and pointing out that they can get fined rather heavily and have criminal charges against the officers of the CA just might help settle things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to clarify. Please correct me if I am wrong on something here.

 

There are two different paper trails discussed when dealing with this:

 

Method #1:

DV & invoke 392... request that the TLs be deleted, etc if they can not properly validate.

Once delivery is confirmed, dispute with CRA.

Wait 30 days from date of signed green card.

No validation & other violations= ITS cc:underwriter for sure. AG & BBB if you want; specify complaint and damages sought; start 60 DTPA countdown to suit; include settlement letter if you want.

Not settled after 60 days= time for litigation or send one last warning (last chance to settle, will file suit in 10 days).

 

 

Method #2: (Quicker & more power in the first punch.)

DV & invoke 392; Also begin 60 DTPA clock by informing them that failure to comply with 392 will lead to suit... specify complaint and damages that will be sought; cc:underwriter.

Once delivery is confirmed, dispute with CRA.

Wait 30 days.

No validation = violation... only 30 more days till you can file suit.

May send last chance settlement letter if you want... shows the courts that you were trying to avoid litigation.

Not settled... file suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread. All 36 pages of it. Thanks to everyone who's posted over the years. I still have a couple questions I'm not sure of the answers to, even after reading and looking over BCC 17 & TFC 392/393.

  • If one starts the 60 day right to cure in the first letter, (as centex seems to advocate) can one notify the company that you also intend to file for any additional violations that may occur within the next 60 days and have that hold up in court? The code just says you have to give them a list in "reasonable detail" and while "any other violations that occur after the writing of this letter" seems reasonable to me, as the consumer cannot be assumed to be prescient, I'm not sure if this has held up in the past. Does anyone know a minimum definition for "reasonable detail" that has held up in the past from personal experience?
  • If I'm not intending to pursue the bond companies directly, just damages/etc. from the CA, (which may be paid by the bond) then notifying the bond company is a good idea for extra leverage is good, but would I really want to do that at the same time I send off the first DV? I don't want to "tip my hand" and give a whole listing of every violation I can show so far.
  • FTC Opinion letters have been held by the courts to be clarifications of applicable federal codes in the past, and as the Texas codes do actually reference these documents, they could be considered to be clarifications of applicable Texas codes. One FTC opinion letter specifically details that reporting accounts to CRAs is considered to be collection activity on the part of a collections agency. I find this argument to be somewhat sufficient to prove my point, but I'd rather be over-prepared than under. Can anyone point me to a legal precedent (or way to find one) where the Texas courts ruled that FTC opinion letters were clarifications to applicable codes, or even this specific letter applied?
  • I'm not entirely certain if a CA is considered to be a "Credit Services Organization" as defined in TFC 393, meaning that those codes, restrictions and additional penalties would apply to them. I mean, if one sortof looks at some of the descriptions a little slanty-ways, they could be interpreted that way. Could someone help me understand why they would be or point me to a case/ruling where they were ruled to be?
  • I have a 3-page DV letter written up as a sort-of catch all. I'll be removing non-applicable sections as needed for each individual creditor, and adding more specific details for each account. Would someone experienced be willing to look it over and "troubleshoot" it for me?

Bold print does not indicate yelling or anger. Just formatting for (hopefully) easier reference by you, dear reader. bye1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread, I agree. Just wanted to get an opinion on this TX DV letter. My BOA account was sold to Ed Overcash; I sent DV letter and never heard from them. That DV letter did not mention TX code, however, so I knew I could do better. Overcash, in the meantime, has sold the account to CACH, so here I go with the DV game again. Here's what I have to send; comments?

 

 

 

CACH scum

 

Re: BOA Acct. # ending in xxxx

 

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

This letter is to inform you that I would like a verification of the debt and your ability to collect this money from me.

 

Under the FDCPA and Texas Finance Code Section 392.202, I have the right to request a validation of this debt. I request that you prove that I am indeed the party who is contractually obligated to pay off this debt.

 

Please attach copies of the following documents:

 

  • Agreement with your client that authorizes you to collect on this alleged debt.
  • Proof that this debt was legally transferred from the original creditor to the third party debt collector, and the date this transfer occurred.
  • Agreement that bears signature of the alleged debtor where he promises to pay the original creditor.
  • Complete payment history on this account, including current balance, original balance and date of original default, to prove that the amount you wish to collect is accurate.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

me

 

 

 

 

Suggestions for changes? Thanks!!!

 

 

 

 

Edited by txgal1964

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread. All 36 pages of it. Thanks to everyone who's posted over the years. I still have a couple questions I'm not sure of the answers to, even after reading and looking over BCC 17 & TFC 392/393.

  • If one starts the 60 day right to cure in the first letter, (as centex seems to advocate) can one notify the company that you also intend to file for any additional violations that may occur within the next 60 days and have that hold up in court? The code just says you have to give them a list in "reasonable detail" and while "any other violations that occur after the writing of this letter" seems reasonable to me, as the consumer cannot be assumed to be prescient, I'm not sure if this has held up in the past. Does anyone know a minimum definition for "reasonable detail" that has held up in the past from personal experience? YES. I've filed against a company that is still committing violations. I will amend my complaint to include the latest violations.
  • If I'm not intending to pursue the bond companies directly, just damages/etc. from the CA, (which may be paid by the bond) then notifying the bond company is a good idea for extra leverage is good, but would I really want to do that at the same time I send off the first DV? I don't want to "tip my hand" and give a whole listing of every violation I can show so far. Go ahead and send it to the bond company. Don't be surprised if you hear nothing from them. I have found them to be very unhelpful, and they typically bury their heads in the sand.
  • FTC Opinion letters have been held by the courts to be clarifications of applicable federal codes in the past, and as the Texas codes do actually reference these documents, they could be considered to be clarifications of applicable Texas codes. One FTC opinion letter specifically details that reporting accounts to CRAs is considered to be collection activity on the part of a collections agency. I find this argument to be somewhat sufficient to prove my point, but I'd rather be over-prepared than under. Can anyone point me to a legal precedent (or way to find one) where the Texas courts ruled that FTC opinion letters were clarifications to applicable codes, or even this specific letter applied? Don't know off the top of my head. Cprems might. I can tell you this is pretty common knowledge at this point.
  • I'm not entirely certain if a CA is considered to be a "Credit Services Organization" as defined in TFC 393, meaning that those codes, restrictions and additional penalties would apply to them. I mean, if one sortof looks at some of the descriptions a little slanty-ways, they could be interpreted that way. Could someone help me understand why they would be or point me to a case/ruling where they were ruled to be? Not sure about this one...hesitant to answer.
  • I have a 3-page DV letter written up as a sort-of catch all. I'll be removing non-applicable sections as needed for each individual creditor, and adding more specific details for each account. Would someone experienced be willing to look it over and "troubleshoot" it for me? Absolutely. Send it my way. Use PM if you want.

Bold print does not indicate yelling or anger. Just formatting for (hopefully) easier reference by you, dear reader. bye1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not want VERIFICATION. You want proof of validation. Do not reference Federal law(see why in DV below). This could get any court case moved to federal. I would only reference Tx law.

 

This is a variation on the DV I send. This is an example. I keep my final products private, but this will give you a better idea of what to include in a TX style DV.

 

 

I dispute the alleged debts in their entirety and request validation of all three of these accounts through the use of competent legal evidentiary material that shows I have some contractual obligation to pay your company the reported amount. In your return correspondence please include all documents associated with this account.

 

Per Texas Finance Code 392, you have 30 days from your receipt of this tracked letter to validate these three alleged debts. If you can not or will not validate this account properly in 30 days, Texas Finance Code 392.202(d) requires all three trade lines associated with the three alleged debts must be deleted from any and all credit reports/reporting bureaus you may do business with. You are not to sell, transfer, assign, or share any information about me, or this alleged debt with anyone else.

 

Be advised you are here by put on the 60 day notice of "right to cure" as allowed under the Texas Business and Commerce Code (BCC17).

 

Failure to timely and fully validate this alleged debt will result in an actionable offense(s) under Texas state law, in which damages will also be sought under § 17.41 Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act of the Business and Commerce Code (BCC17). Those damages are subject under Texas law to a trebling upon a showing of gross negligence. Should legal action be necessary, venue shall reside in XXX County, Texas. Upon a favorable finding in the XXX County courts, claim will be made against the bond. There are no federal questions being raised in this matter and any attempt to remove an action to Federal Court will be challenged.

 

My request for validation does not authorize your company to pull my credit report – whether "soft" or "hard" – from any credit reporting agency.

 

This document is also to serve as notice that the only form of correspondence I am willing to receive from your business is through the United States Postal Service at the address listed in this letterhead. Telephone calls to my home or place of employment are inconvenient.

 

I retain the right to use this correspondence and all following communications in any court proceedings arising in regard to this account.

 

 

ETA: It is vitally important you state that if they can not, or will not validate the account they must DELETE the account. A quick re-read over TFC and you will remember that the CA, after failing to validate within 30 days, is required to change the account reporting pursuant to the consumer's request. Meaning if you want them to delete it, you must say so.

 

 

Great thread, I agree. Just wanted to get an opinion on this TX DV letter. My BOA account was sold to Ed Overcash; I sent DV letter and never heard from them. That DV letter did not mention TX code, however, so I knew I could do better. Overcash, in the meantime, has sold the account to CACH, so here I go with the DV game again. Here's what I have to send; comments?

 

 

 

CACH scum

 

Re: BOA Acct. # ending in xxxx

 

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

This letter is to inform you that I would like a verification of the debt and your ability to collect this money from me.

 

Under the FDCPA and Texas Finance Code Section 392.202, I have the right to request a validation of this debt. I request that you prove that I am indeed the party who is contractually obligated to pay off this debt.

 

Please attach copies of the following documents:

 

  • Agreement with your client that authorizes you to collect on this alleged debt.
  • Proof that this debt was legally transferred from the original creditor to the third party debt collector, and the date this transfer occurred.
  • Agreement that bears signature of the alleged debtor where he promises to pay the original creditor.
  • Complete payment history on this account, including current balance, original balance and date of original default, to prove that the amount you wish to collect is accurate.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

me

 

 

 

 

Suggestions for changes? Thanks!!!

 

 

 

 

Edited by ashlia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not want VERIFICATION. You want proof of validation. Do not reference Federal law(see why in DV below). This could get any court case moved to federal. I would only reference Tx law.

 

This is a variation on the DV I send. This is an example. I keep my final products private, but this will give you a better idea of what to include in a TX style DV.

 

 

I dispute the alleged debts in their entirety and request validation of all three of these accounts through the use of competent legal evidentiary material that shows I have some contractual obligation to pay your company the reported amount. In your return correspondence please include all documents associated with this account.

 

Per Texas Finance Code 392, you have 30 days from your receipt of this tracked letter to validate these three alleged debts. If you can not or will not validate this account properly in 30 days, Texas Finance Code 392.202(d) requires all three trade lines associated with the three alleged debts must be deleted from any and all credit reports/reporting bureaus you may do business with. You are not to sell, transfer, assign, or share any information about me, or this alleged debt with anyone else.

 

Be advised you are here by put on the 60 day notice of "right to cure" as allowed under the Texas Business and Commerce Code (BCC17).

 

Failure to timely and fully validate this alleged debt will result in an actionable offense(s) under Texas state law, in which damages will also be sought under § 17.41 Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act of the Business and Commerce Code (BCC17). Those damages are subject under Texas law to a trebling upon a showing of gross negligence. Should legal action be necessary, venue shall reside in XXX County, Texas. Upon a favorable finding in the XXX County courts, claim will be made against the bond. There are no federal questions being raised in this matter and any attempt to remove an action to Federal Court will be challenged.

 

My request for validation does not authorize your company to pull my credit report – whether "soft" or "hard" – from any credit reporting agency.

 

This document is also to serve as notice that the only form of correspondence I am willing to receive from your business is through the United States Postal Service at the address listed in this letterhead. Telephone calls to my home or place of employment are inconvenient.

 

I retain the right to use this correspondence and all following communications in any court proceedings arising in regard to this account.

 

ETA: It is vitally important you state that if they can not, or will not validate the account they must DELETE the account. A quick re-read over TFC and you will remember that the CA, after failing to validate within 30 days, is required to change the account reporting pursuant to the consumer's request. Meaning if you want them to delete it, you must say so.

 

 

 

 

 

Great thread, I agree. Just wanted to get an opinion on this TX DV letter. My BOA account was sold to Ed Overcash; I sent DV letter and never heard from them. That DV letter did not mention TX code, however, so I knew I could do better. Overcash, in the meantime, has sold the account to CACH, so here I go with the DV game again. Here's what I have to send; comments?

 

 

 

CACH scum

 

Re: BOA Acct. # ending in xxxx

 

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

This letter is to inform you that I would like a verification of the debt and your ability to collect this money from me.

 

Under the FDCPA and Texas Finance Code Section 392.202, I have the right to request a validation of this debt. I request that you prove that I am indeed the party who is contractually obligated to pay off this debt.

 

Please attach copies of the following documents:

 

  • Agreement with your client that authorizes you to collect on this alleged debt.
  • Proof that this debt was legally transferred from the original creditor to the third party debt collector, and the date this transfer occurred.
  • Agreement that bears signature of the alleged debtor where he promises to pay the original creditor.
  • Complete payment history on this account, including current balance, original balance and date of original default, to prove that the amount you wish to collect is accurate.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

me

 

 

 

 

Suggestions for changes? Thanks!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure about this one...hesitant to answer.

I completely understand. This is one of the few times I'd say a 100% accurate "no" is better than a 50% accurate "yes." wink.gif I think that if they could be defined as such, I would have a pretty rough case against a few CAs and even the OCs if I had to pursue one, but at this point we just really want to get our reports fixed so we can get on with our lives. It would also allow me to flood them with requests for certain kinds of information in my first letter which would decrease the likelihood that they'd be able to answer everything within 30 days, and increase the likelihood that they've already done something wrong that I can point to as further leverage.

 

I'll send the letter along some time around lunch--I forgot to bring it to the office with me. >_<

 

EDIT: Blarg! I can't believe I forgot to say thank you the first time around!

 

Thanks so much for the answers!

Edited by RainyLara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have noted in my above post that the content in that DV example is largely from Centex and WaltG55. Shame on me for not giving credit to whom it is due...

 

If only I could thank those two in person(or on here...if they lurk)???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More (specific) thoughts:

 

TFC 393.001 (Definitions)

(3) "Credit services organization" means a person who provides, or
represents that the person can or will provide
, for the payment of valuable consideration any of the following services with respect to the extension of consumer credit by others:

( A ) improving a consumer's credit history or rating;

( B ) obtaining an extension of consumer credit for a consumer; or

( C ) providing advice or assistance to a consumer with regard to Paragraph ( A ) or ( B ).

The next section 393.002 allows for certain types of people to be exempt, but collection agencies do not fall under that exemption, and anyone claiming such an exemption has the burden to prove that exemption in court.

 

Now, representing yourself as someone who can do this when you can't of course falls under BCC 17, but it seems to me that it also burdens that entity with additional restrictions and regulations under this chapter solely by virtue of their own claim.

 

The goal of all CAs seems to be to collect payment, many CAs claim that paying your debt to them will improve your credit history and rating, ( A ) and I have never herd of any CA that did NOT advise the consumer that paying their debt would improve (or at least prevent decline) of that credit history rating, ( C ) which means that it seems most CAs self-apply status of a "credit services organization."

 

If anyone can confirm/deny/tell me I am full of poop, I would greatly appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you post this in it's own thread, you will have many Texan's weigh in. This thread is used so much for reference purposes now, I'm afraid your idea won't get much traffic. Please, post this theory in its own thread, and we'll begin to research this "untested: idea...It's interesting...

 

Sorry Mod's if that is overstepping. I'm just afraid this will be overlooked at the end of this wonderful Texas Mother thread.

 

 

More (specific) thoughts:

 

TFC 393.001 (Definitions)

(3) "Credit services organization" means a person who provides, or
represents that the person can or will provide
, for the payment of valuable consideration any of the following services with respect to the extension of consumer credit by others:

( A ) improving a consumer's credit history or rating;

( B ) obtaining an extension of consumer credit for a consumer; or

( C ) providing advice or assistance to a consumer with regard to Paragraph ( A ) or ( B ).

The next section 393.002 allows for certain types of people to be exempt, but collection agencies do not fall under that exemption, and anyone claiming such an exemption has the burden to prove that exemption in court.

 

Now, representing yourself as someone who can do this when you can't of course falls under BCC 17, but it seems to me that it also burdens that entity with additional restrictions and regulations under this chapter solely by virtue of their own claim.

 

The goal of all CAs seems to be to collect payment, many CAs claim that paying your debt to them will improve your credit history and rating, ( A ) and I have never herd of any CA that did NOT advise the consumer that paying their debt would improve (or at least prevent decline) of that credit history rating, ( C ) which means that it seems most CAs self-apply status of a "credit services organization."

 

If anyone can confirm/deny/tell me I am full of poop, I would greatly appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in its own thread, but since I started here with asking for help with this issue, I wanted to update and see if I could get some specific TX feedback...

 

Re: the BOA account that Overcash never validated, and now CACH has it (mentioned a few posts above)...they sent what they consider validation in response to my DV letter: 6 months of statements. In the meantime, they're filing suit...no service yet, but the ads from attorneys are coming and a server came by...account is in my husband's name, wouldn't leave it. This attorney is working fast. BUT, in reviewing my credit reports, I discovered that CACH was already the owner of the debt when Overcash had it (Overcash never mentioned CACH in the letters; only the CR showed that the dates corresponded with the date BOA sold the account, and it was to CACH, who is listed as the owner now as per the papers from attorney #2). In other words, CACH has been the owner since BOA sold it, and technically this is their second attempt to get money from me. When Overcash didn't validate, CACH simply turned the account over to a new attorney. Is that considered continuing collection activity after the 30 day window to validate expired with the first attorney? They did NOT sell the debt; they simply assigned it to a new attorney to collect for them. I'm wondering if I've got them on this one. Thoughts from the TX gurus? THANKS!! :)

Edited by txgal1964

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a suit involved - post over in the HIBS forum.

 

There are many many defenses to be used against a JDB such as CACH.

 

Can you point me to the thread you started?

 

 

I posted this in its own thread, but since I started here with asking for help with this issue, I wanted to update and see if I could get some specific TX feedback...

 

Re: the BOA account that Overcash never validated, and now CACH has it (mentioned a few posts above)...they sent what they consider validation in response to my DV letter: 6 months of statements. In the meantime, they're filing suit...no service yet, but the ads from attorneys are coming and a server came by...account is in my husband's name, wouldn't leave it. This attorney is working fast. BUT, in reviewing my credit reports, I discovered that CACH was already the owner of the debt when Overcash had it (Overcash never mentioned CACH in the letters; only the CR showed that the dates corresponded with the date BOA sold the account, and it was to CACH, who is listed as the owner now as per the papers from attorney #2). In other words, CACH has been the owner since BOA sold it, and technically this is their second attempt to get money from me. When Overcash didn't validate, CACH simply turned the account over to a new attorney. Is that considered continuing collection activity after the 30 day window to validate expired with the first attorney? They did NOT sell the debt; they simply assigned it to a new attorney to collect for them. I'm wondering if I've got them on this one. Thoughts from the TX gurus? THANKS!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did start a thread over there; not getting much response to my latest question and it was recommended to check out the TX threads again, so I thought I'd ask here as a follow up to my previous posst in this thread about the same topic. I haven't been served yet, but I'm just wondering if the lack of validation at all from CACH atty. #1 (Overcash) gives me any sort of defense against CACH and atty. #2 (Richard Clark). Two attorneys; one CA. Link to thread: http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=471124

 

Thanks for your help! I'm slowly picking my way through all this. I feel stupid for not putting two and two together with CACH and Overcash to begin with, and then for not getting them to delete after Overcash didn't validate in time. One step at a time, however...I WILL get through this! :)

 

 

 

If there is a suit involved - post over in the HIBS forum.

 

There are many many defenses to be used against a JDB such as CACH.

 

Can you point me to the thread you started?

 

 

I posted this in its own thread, but since I started here with asking for help with this issue, I wanted to update and see if I could get some specific TX feedback...

 

Re: the BOA account that Overcash never validated, and now CACH has it (mentioned a few posts above)...they sent what they consider validation in response to my DV letter: 6 months of statements. In the meantime, they're filing suit...no service yet, but the ads from attorneys are coming and a server came by...account is in my husband's name, wouldn't leave it. This attorney is working fast. BUT, in reviewing my credit reports, I discovered that CACH was already the owner of the debt when Overcash had it (Overcash never mentioned CACH in the letters; only the CR showed that the dates corresponded with the date BOA sold the account, and it was to CACH, who is listed as the owner now as per the papers from attorney #2). In other words, CACH has been the owner since BOA sold it, and technically this is their second attempt to get money from me. When Overcash didn't validate, CACH simply turned the account over to a new attorney. Is that considered continuing collection activity after the 30 day window to validate expired with the first attorney? They did NOT sell the debt; they simply assigned it to a new attorney to collect for them. I'm wondering if I've got them on this one. Thoughts from the TX gurus? THANKS!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is for Texas/TFC392 research purposes. You may not get the answers you need.

 

Post this in a new thread - Specifically use Texas in the Title.

 

I PM'd the Admin to see if they will get it moved for you.

Edited by cprems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question on next step(s):

  • DV letter to CA sent via CMRRR. - no validation within the 30 days of the CMRRR 11.17.2011 signature date.
  • Disputed with all 3 CRAs:
  • Rec'd response back from TU that dispute was completed and verified on 11.30.2011.
  • Rec'd response back from EX on 11.29.2011 stating they would be contacting the CA to verify the information.
  • No response rec'd back from EQ.

Do I now need to submit ITS letter due to (currently) 2 violations, or do I need to wait to see what EX and EQ responses are before filing the ITS?

 

Background Intel - this is a very small collection account ($115) that I didn't know existed until I applied for credit - and the bank told me I had a collection on my credit report. I had received nothing in the mail, no phone calls etc.

 

Any guidance / assistance would be greatly appreciated.

 

J

 

Start your own thread citing Texas in the header. You will get more answers in that thread.

 

This topic is for research and informational purposes only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 2102 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      179,014
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Bobby39
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines