ambigious wording in letter from debt collection agency

[toastnjelly4all]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

I received a letter from a collection agency, which stated I owed a bill for $1460 plus $140 interest, total balance $1600. The letter stated that I "must pay that amount in 10 days or they will have no choice but to pursue the matter legally". Then it states that this amount "can include a $300 collection fee". My alarm bells are going off. Is it legal for them to send me a statement saying I owe a certain amount, including interest, and that this amount can include a fee they may or may not be imposing on me?

 

[justalayman]

actually, it is a requirement they itemize separate fees when they are applicable.

That doesn't mean those fees are legally allowable, just that if they are, they must be separate from the original debt.

To determine what fees you might be liable for, you would have to refer to your original contract.

 

[toastnjelly4all]

Fdcpa

Now my question is... Are they in violation of the FDCPA by sending out a bill like this?

 

[racer72]

Now my question is... Are they in violation of the FDCPA by sending out a bill like this?

Absolutely not.

 

[Tayla]

Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act states:

§ 809. Validation of debts
(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.

---My response- send a letter requesting verification and documentation , most places rarely have the correct information in order to collect, Age of account plays a major factor in collecting.

 

[justalayman]

---My response- send a letter requesting verification and documentation , most places rarely have the correct information in order to collect, Age of account plays a major factor in collecting.

A letter requesting what?

ALL a collection agency has to provide is a validation of the debt. That is simply them contacting the original creditor and obtaining verification the debtor is the debtor and they owe a debt. There is absolutely no requirement to provide any other documentation. If the debtor is sued, they can seek other documentation but until it reaches that point, the required info is very minimal.

Age of account is irrelevant in collections. Age of account and the associated statute of limitations may be a viable defense if sued, but until it gets that far, irrelevant.

 

[Tayla]

To the OP- send the verification letter and get a consumer lawyer to guide you, some information is best served by a professional .

Also pull your credit reports- your consumer lawyer will recommend this to see how its being reported and the age of the account (if its even reporting or charged off)

 

[justalayman]

To the OP- send the verification letter and get a consumer lawyer to guide you, some information is best served by a professional .

and some people have no idea what they are talking about. Apparently you are one of the many mistaken people that believe a creditor has to provide you with an accounting of the account in question. If you want support for what is required by the FDCPA, you should do some research. The opinion letters from the FTC concerning the FDCPA are a good place to start. Then, case law will further clarify what is required by the FDCPA.


based on your suggestion of:

--My response- send a letter requesting verification and documentation , most places rarely have the correct information in order to collect, Age of account plays a major factor in collecting.

Apparently you believe a creditor is required to provide much more than they actually are.

While the points you make would be important if the debtor was sued, at this point in the game, they are just about irrelevant.

 

[Tayla]

My suggestions stand despite the previous posters antagonistic responses.
A PROFESSIONAL CONSUMER LAWYER will best guide this poster.

Collection agents are NOT the original creditor.

 

[justalayman]

My suggestions stand despite the previous posters antagonistic responses.
A PROFESSIONAL CONSUMER LAWYER will best guide this poster.

Collection agents are NOT the original creditor.

If the CA purchased the debt, they are treated as the original creditor.
and you are arguing this over the OP getting a letter stating who the original creditor is?

Sure, they should go ahead and send a letter demanding verification. They just shouldn't expect what you suggest they are entitled to. And yes, if the SOL has run, they may have a valid legal out to paying this debt they incurred somewhere in life.

but I love the: hey, go hire a lawyer thing. They haven't paid this debt so why not go out and spend a couple grand on a lawyer, and still owe this debt when all is said and done. Why don't they just pay this bill and not pay a lawyer and come out ahead.

 

[Tayla]

Justalay wrote:"but I love the: hey, go hire a lawyer thing. They haven't paid this debt so why not go out and spend a couple grand on a lawyer, and still owe this debt when all is said and done. Why don't they just pay this bill and not pay a lawyer and come out ahead."

Hire? Where was that written in the post?
NACA comes to mind...look em up.

Wrong: Debt collectors and Original creditor are not held to the same regulations. Thus the FDCPA rules and guidelines.

 

[justalayman]

Wrong: Debt collectors and Original creditor are not held to the same regulations. Thus the FDCPA rules and guidelines.

that's right. an original creditor has almost no controls on their actions when attempting to collect a debt. An OC would not even be required to provide a validation, provide the "mini-Miranda", or anything else required by the FDCPA.

so, your point? and it was you that made the issue about the CA not being the OC.

but for purposes of legal actions against the debtor, the CA (if they have in fact purchased the debt) is looked at as an OC. They are bound by the OC's contract.

I doubt NACA would dedicate any resources to a situation that has, at least here, shown no violations of the FDCPA. Doesn't make a lot of sense to do so so, that leaves it to the OP hiring an attorney out of pocket.