Author Topic: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,  (Read 7445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

koolkinkajou

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5
FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« on: September 11, 2012 02:50:11 AM »
See attachment for the complaint.

cprems

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2190
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2012 06:53:37 PM »
I wish we could sue for every FDCPA & FCRA violation.

I wish we could also fine them 16K PER violation as well.

This would be the only way to get them to collect within the law.
ALL my postings have NO legal value.

 I AM the "village idiot" please hold my posts to this standard.

 If you need legal Counsel - contact an Attorney.

callofduty

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 93
  • I donated!
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012 07:23:54 PM »
Quote
"6. Asset Acceptance is a "debt collector" as defined in Section 803(6) ofthe FDCPA
15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). As part of its debt collection activities, Asset Acceptance furnishes
information to consumer reporting agencies. As such, Asset Acceptance is a person or entity
subject to Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U .S.C. 1681 s-2, which imposes a series of duties and
prohibitions upon any person or entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency.
7. The term "consumer" as used in this Complaint means any natural person obligated
or allegedly obligated to pay any debt, as "debt" is defined in Section 803(5) of the FDCPA,
15 U.S.C. 1692a(5)."

FTC views Asset Acceptable as debt collector. It means that LVNV is also the debt collector, too?
You know, all of my postings are considered as hearsay, as well as have no legal value at all.

http://www.debtorboards.com/index.php?topic=80.0  Abbreviations Used

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 10136
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012 08:58:27 PM »
Read the FDCPA and tell us what YOU think!

KFMAN

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5133
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2012 02:35:49 PM »
47. To investigate some ACDV disputes classified by consumer reporting agencies as involving fraud or identity theft allegations, Asset sends a letter to the consumer requesting proof of fraud or identity theft. Similarly, Asset may seek to investigate some consumer disputes by reviewing account documents. If such documentation is not available internally, Asset may try to order documents from the original creditor. When available, it can take up to six months for Asset to obtain the requested documents. Likewise, in numerous instances, it can take several weeks for Asset to receive and review documents it requested from consumers. In these circumstances, Asset is unable to complete its investigation in the time allowed for investigations by Sections 623(b)(2) and 611(a)(1) of the FCRA.  For these ACDVs, Asset marks the negative information as disputed but continues to report it.  Because Asset has not completed its investigation and therefore cannot at that time reasonably verify the information it reported to the CRA, Section 623(b)(I)(E) of the FCRA requires that Asset modify, delete, or permanently block the information.

48. Consumers are harmed by Asset's inadequate investigation of ACDV disputes.  Many consumers have been denied credit or charged higher rates or fees for credit because Asset continues to report inaccurate negative information to their credit files.

These crooks did this to me, but they are no longer reporting.  I had my hands full with FDCPA lawsuits at the time and FCRA can be a hard read.  Most JDB have the same issue and most likely are in violation.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012 02:40:22 PM by KFMAN »

CtrlAltDelete

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 412
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2012 03:02:07 PM »
57. Asset Acceptance has failed to disclose, or failed to disclose adequately, that, in
many instances, (a) it cannot require through a lawsuit that consumers pay debts beyond the
statute of limitations, and (b) if consumers make partial payments on these debts, the statute of
limitations period will be renewed and Asset could again require through a lawsuit that
consumers pay the total outstanding amount of these debts. These facts would be material to
consumers in deciding whether to pay these debts in full or in part.


Midland landed on my CR several months ago, of 3 dunning letters the 1st two where silent on SOL, but interestingly, I noticed the 3rd letter contained a statement to the effect "we will not sue you".

Any one else notice this?
You are only defeated when YOU give up.

cprems

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2190
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2012 03:35:52 PM »
I believe Midland was involved in a class action suit and part of the settlement was the wording on their letters to include "this account may very well be past the SOL and we will not file suit".

They also have to tell you that any payment may restart the SOL. I believe this was a Florida case (maybe)
ALL my postings have NO legal value.

 I AM the "village idiot" please hold my posts to this standard.

 If you need legal Counsel - contact an Attorney.

Gimpy

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 94
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2012 05:25:09 PM »
I believe Midland was involved in a class action suit and part of the settlement was the wording on their letters to include "this account may very well be past the SOL and we will not file suit".

They also have to tell you that any payment may restart the SOL. I believe this was a Florida case (maybe)

I have a letter (received yesterday) from Midland concerning an alleged, within SOL, account. A few observations:

There is no verbiage about not filing suit on SOL accounts.

There is no notification that a partial payment resets the SOL clock. I'm in Florida.

There is this statement: "We want to work with you to repay this account and we will not sue you for repayment of this obligation."

Myrovic

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2013 03:34:14 AM »
I believe Midland was involved in a class action suit and part of the settlement was the wording on their letters to include "this account may very well be past the SOL and we will not file suit".

They also have to tell you that any payment may restart the SOL. I believe this was a Florida case (maybe)



Were you able to find the case?

cprems

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2190
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2013 03:40:22 AM »
No. I did not. I don't live in Florida and I was going by memory for this particular case.




Were you able to find the case?
ALL my postings have NO legal value.

 I AM the "village idiot" please hold my posts to this standard.

 If you need legal Counsel - contact an Attorney.

altony

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 359
Re: FTC Vs ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2013 02:12:20 PM »
See attachment for the complaint.
[/quote


Great find thank you!]

 

credit