When a consumer is dealing with a junk debt buyer sometimes the consumer may think they are losing their mind.

The debt collector wants to confuse the consumer to have the consumer doubt themselves.

Here is a list of examples:

1. you paid off a credit card balance years ago but the collection agency says otherwise telling you it is collections unpaid

2. you receive a letter and it is not your identity but because your name is on the piece of paper it must be yours

3. you receive a letter from a collector with the original creditors logo and vp signature stamped on it – is it from the OC or from a collection attorney

Let’s expound on #3 . . .

Would it make sense to believe if you see letterhead and logo of American Express it would be from Amex? Modern technology these days and just a jpg and a banner can create any company letterhead. You say “well that is against the law to impersonate/imply the letter is from American Express”. We say these people break laws all the time to get you to pay them. Mitchell N Kay office offers a $25 American Express gift card. They want your money. Who cares about a gift card? It is confusing to the consumer to get a letter from a collector with the Amex letterhead. This guy wants to confuse you. They want you to call with confusion.

This agency is aligned with Plaza Associates and they work side by side to collect money from unsuspecting consumers. You may get letters from the law office or Plaza Associates.

Send a VOD (validation of debt) letter to them as soon as possible. Do not talk on the phone to these offices. There is no point to talking on the phone and the best protection is correspondence.

NEXT LEVEL CREDIT

“Taking Your Credit to the Next Level”

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

It is a education in itself when it comes to reading a credit report. The big 3 – CRA’s Credit Reporting Agencies are TransUnion, Experian and Equifax. Each bureau has a different way of reporting the items listed. It is very helpful when the reports note when the item will “fall off” the report. That brings us to the topic of DOLA – date of last activity.

Date of last activity SHOULD be on the credit report as the last date of the LAST payment made. For example, if a consumer has not made a payment on the current credit card debt in 12 months, the date of last activity would be 12 months ago.

Some reports could note “NA” where the DOLA should read. We are referring to Equifax and most of the time there is no date listed.

So why is this important? The DOLA could make a difference on what should be on your report or can be deleted. Often these dates are miscalculated and even debated about what date the DOLA should be on the report (time frame). If the DOLA is incorrect, then the item could be alot older and can be deleted after 7 seven years.

By the way, collection agencies change the DOLA dates all the time. It keeps the item on the report and keeps the score down. It is like a dog chasing its tail, UNTIL the consumer learns more and takes action to change it. There are many violations, and the consumer can sue the CRA’s and win thousands.

Where can you get a free credit report? It is always best to order hard copies of your report. You are allowed 3 free reports every 12 months. 877-322-8228

It takes time but it is time well spent.

NEXT LEVEL CREDIT

“Taking Your Credit to the Next Level”

Tweet This Post

What is a charge off and what can you do about it?

Tweet This Post

They are both labeled with the acronyms CA, but have two different descriptions. One is more serious than the other.

Tweet This Post

There are so many collection agencies but some of them resonate more than others. They are vultures buzzing around.

Tweet This Post

Should Consumers Pay Purchased Citibank Accounts to
Unifund & LVNV Funding?

Even the accounts identified by Experian as less likely to pay proved profitable to Citi. Enter two bottom feeder junk debt buyers; Unifund Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, owned by David G. Rosenberg. Unifund bought into this high stakes game with payments of 4-10 cents per dollar of face value and recovers an average of about 20 cents, grossing profit between 150-200 percent. Unifund puts the hamster back to work by hiring professional liars to read a computer screen, and sign affidavits that they had personal knowledge of the authenticity of the accounts. The wheel would continue to spin until these accounts too were in default. Depositions taken of Unifund employees contain information loaded with perjury and swearing to false statements.

Tweet This Post

Here is an example: You have a credit card debt (open credit) that has not been paid on 4 years. You have not made a payment in 4 years. The SOL has expired on this account. The collection agency is not able to collect. You can write to the agency a letter indicating the SOL.

Tweet This Post

We know that we have been posting many articles about Mann Bracken and Hanna. They are in the headlines/news right now. And we have more news – good news for consumers – in Georgia. This news applies to consumers all over the country not just in Georgia where the Hanna office is located.

Complaints pile up against debt collectors

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

ALISON YOUNG – SPOTLIGHT

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Consumers complain that a Marietta debt collection firm uses deceit and abusive tactics to collect money, even when it isn’t owed, records show.

Enough complained that the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs began investigating last fall. It ordered Frederick J. Hanna & Associates to answer questions about collection practices, consumer disputes and what it does to ensure the validity of debts.

But for three months the state’s top consumer watchdog agency and the debt collector have been in a standoff.

Frederick J. Hanna & Associates says its tactics are none of the state agency’s business. Because it’s a law firm, the debt collector contends it is outside the consumer office’s jurisdiction. It refuses to answer the agency’s questions.

“We don’t feel like they’re entitled to anything. Period,” Frederick Hanna said. He said his firm gets 50,000 new debt files each month and its collection methods are legitimate.

The consumer office says it has a right to investigate whether the firm’s tactics are breaking state law. “If we perceive an infraction of the law, we don’t believe your status as a law firm will protect you,” said Bill Cloud, a spokesman for the consumer office.

A hearing is scheduled March 30 in Cobb County Superior Court and the outcome could have a significant impact on thousands of Georgia consumers targeted by debt collectors — especially those who don’t owe money.

Here and across the nation, consumers complained more about debt collectors than any other industry in 2008, according to new data from the Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Sentinel Network.

The network, used by law enforcement, tracks complaints to the FTC, as well as to groups such as the Better Business Bureau, FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Social Security Administration and the National Consumers League.

Last month the FTC issued a report saying the debt collection legal system needs reform and the 1977 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act needs to be modernized to reflect changes in technology, debt and the collection industry.

While the FTC said timely payment of debts is important, it said the law needs changes to better ensure that collectors are going after the right people for the right amounts of money. The law also needs to mandate that collectors give consumers better information about their legal rights.

Complaints about debt collectors are on the rise and some of the tactics firms use are already illegal, Cloud said.

“A lot of them are buying up ‘zombie debt.’ It’s old debt you cannot collect anymore by normal means,” Cloud said. “It’s essentially debt renewal. To get you back on the hook they try to intimidate and try to berate you.”

Zombie debt, like the name implies, is debt — legitimate or not — that refuses to die. It may be debt that resulted from identity theft years ago that the original creditor wrote off. It may be a legitimate debt that is several years old, was already paid off or has been legally erased by bankruptcy. The debt gains new life when sold to a collection agency for pennies on the dollar.

In November, the state consumer office served an investigative demand notice, similar to a subpoena, on Frederick J. Hanna & Associates. It asked for documents about the firm’s collection practices, including those involving zombie debts. Officials with the consumer office declined to give details about the complaints they have received about the firm, citing the ongoing investigation.

The firm has an “F” rating with the BBB because of its complaint history, including failing to respond to consumer concerns, according to BBB records.

State officials are investigating potential violations of Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, according to the notice, including allegations the firm engaged in abusive or oppressive tactics prohibited under state and federal laws and allegations the firm used misleading and deceptive methods. The notice does not provide details or examples.

Hanna said Friday that if the consumer office wants to review a few specific files, he’d allow it. But he said he has hundreds of thousands of files and it is unreasonable to provide them all, as has been requested.

Until recently, it was unclear whether the state Fair Business Practices Act could be applied to debt collectors. In 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that collection of a debt is a consumer transaction covered by the law.

Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, in documents filed in Cobb County Superior Court, says the consumer office is asking for an unreasonable amount of information. But beyond that, the debt collection law firm contends that the consumer office has no jurisdiction over the practice of law and therefore no jurisdiction over its activities. The consumer office is seeking an order from the court to force the firm to comply with its demand for documents and information.

State consumer officials have opened a similar investigation of Mann Bracken, a national debt collection law firm with an office in Atlanta. Mann Bracken also contends the consumer office doesn’t have jurisdiction, according to Fulton County court records. Lawyer conduct is regulated only by the State Bar and the Supreme Court of Georgia, the firm said in documents filed in court.

Hanna said Spotlight should not be focusing on debt collection firms. The problem is the debtors and the amount they owe, he said, adding that consumers should try to work with people like him.

Cloud warned that consumers should be careful about anything they say to a debt collector. Insist the firm send you written proof you owe the money, he said.

“If this is an old debt and you do not believe you owe this money, do not in any way, shape or form reaffirm this debt,” Cloud said. “They are probably recording you.”

NEXT LEVEL CREDIT

ps. read more later this week about statute of limitations

Tweet This Post

This article was brought to us from a very trusted Source…thank you. Articles such as this are very important to the consumer. This victory is a major leap for consumers. Enjoy!

Supreme Court Strikes Down

Mandatory Credit Card Arbitration
Decision is big victory for consumers
By Jon Hood ConsumerAffairs.com March 9, 2009

In a victory for consumers, the Supreme Court held today that credit-card holders can sometimes fight mandatory arbitration agreements, giving them a better prospect of victory in claims brought by banks and creditors.

The decision arose from a 2003 suit filed by Discover in Maryland state court, trying to recover $10,000 in past-due charges from cardholder Betty Vaden. In a class-action counterclaim, Vaden asserted that Discover’s finance charges, interest, and late fees violated Maryland state law. Discover filed a motion in federal court to compel arbitration, citing a mandatory arbitration clause in Vaden’s cardholder agreement. Discover argued that Vaden’s state claims were preempted by federal banking laws, meaning that state and federal laws contradicted one another. In such a situation, federal law takes precedence and federal courts have jurisdiction of the claim.

The Fourth Circuit said that they would disregard the intricacies of the parties’ pleadings to determine whether the underlying substantive controversy involved federal law. The court found that it did, and that, accordingly, they had jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court agreed that underlying federal issues were enough to get a case into federal court, but said that Vaden’s counterclaims alone weren’t enough under that standard. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that Discover’s suit “was triggered by Discover’s garden-variety, state-law debt-collection claim against Vaden,” and thus belonged in state court. It is a well-established rule that federal jurisdiction must be based on the initial controversy, rather than on a counterclaim or anticipated defense. Otherwise, a defendant could “forum-shop” by bringing a federal counterclaim, avoiding state court altogether. The Supreme Court affirmed this rule in its opinion, saying that “a federal court may not entertain a [claim] based on the contents, actual or hypothetical, of a counterclaim.” A dissent in the Fourth Circuit’s earlier decision made the same argument, asserting that “[t]here was no ‘properly invoked federal question’ in the underlying state case.”

Boiled down, the decision means that credit card holders can’t be as easily forced into mandated arbitration — a major victory for consumers, since arbitration forums tend to overwhelmingly favor credit card companies. A study by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen found that a staggering 94 percent of credit-card arbitration cases were decided against consumers. In its findings, the group said that “binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from a deck stacked against consumers.” The study analyzed California cases brought by credit card company MBNA, and heard by the National Arbitration Forum. Credit card companies attempt to justify mandated arbitration by arguing that it is more efficient and less expensive than protracted litigation. They also point out that many state courts don’t want to give up the suits, and fight to keep them out of arbitration.

NEXT LEVEL CREDIT

Tweet This Post