Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 122,000 members

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:42 am Subject: FDCPA lawsuits, the truth on 1692k

I did some looking round and I found out the truth. Some people say $1,000 per violation and some say $1,000 total even if there is 50 violations. all this information is from fdcpaexpert.blogspot.com

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:01 am Subject:

So, you are saying it's ok for CA to break the laws and we should not hold them accountable??

Nope, they need to be sued too.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:07 am Subject:

I wonder what makes Creditwrench (the blogger) an expert in FDCPA? Is that a title he/she gave them self, or did they earn it from somewhere?

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:11 am Subject:

And does it say anything about what the "much better ways to deal with the situation and get the same thing done in a much more effective manner" are?

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:13 am Subject:

I think all that is in that article is based on opinion.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:22 am Subject:

Oh I am not saying this, I figured I would post this for discussion and to clarify on the amount of statutory damages.

what it is saying is that you can sue a debt collector for 5 violations 5 different times but you can be sanctioned for it. In some states, it is referred to as "claim splitting".

If you do plan on suing a debt collector for 5 violations, do it all at the same time. Another thing to do is what I might do, If you have letters from a debt collector that contain numerous violations, save them. Make sure you respond in the first 30 days for validation. When they fail to validate they will most likely stop bothering you and sell it off to someone else.

This is the time to file a lawsuit against them. They no longer own the debt so they can't file a counterclaim for the debt in question. Remember, you have one year to take actions for violations. Anything after that one year and your claim is void.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:22 am Subject:

Filing Frivolous FDCPA lawsuits?

Well, it is certainly clear whose side the author of this article and blog is on. I don't think, however, the author is very accurate in all of the claims he makes though.

It seems to me he is basically trying to discourage or intimidate anyone from filing FDCPA violation lawsuits. The thing is they are real lawsuits and CA's have lost them and had to pay the fines to the debtors that sued them; it is a documented fact. I have never read a post from anyone on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, making the claim that an FDCPA lawsuit will just make the debt go away; FDCPA violations are completely different issues from the debt. I have, however, seen people advising to take any reward money they might get from winning an FDCPA violation lawsuit and use it toward paying that debt.

I'm sure if I sat here and went through this article point-by-point and doing a little research on the internet, I could drive holes all through it; however, I just don't have the time or inclination to do that. The best advice I could give anyone, if they think they do have an FDCPA violation case, is to make sure they have documented everything they can regarding this issue, and seek advice from an attorney. The first place to start looking for one would be www.naca.net. Don't let this article scare or intimidate you into not standing up for your rights!

Thanks for sharing poke-rtramp (wouldn't let me post your name, must be a bad word), it's always good to see what opposing viewpoint "poop" others might be posting.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:28 am Subject:

your welcome oh and I posted right above you Ron the same time you did.

here is another site to debunk creditwrench:

creditwrench-thetruth.blogspot.com

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:35 am Subject:

Another excellent point regarding validation poke-r-tramp.

I have sent out numerous "debt validation/cease & desist" letters in the past year (well over 20) and have only ever received two responses back. One response advised me they had sent the debt back to the OC, while the other only sent me copies of 4 statements with no signed contract or proof the CA could be collecting on the debt. The only CA that has actually sued me was one that I didn't even send a DV/C&D letter too and they couldn't even get the paperwork they submitted as back up right. I bet if I had DV'd them, I probably would never have heard back from them either.

So, if CA's are so "empowered" to sue debtors, as the article claims, then why can't they respond to a simple DV/C&D letter?

Also a great point Shazzers! Where did this clown that authored this article get his "FDCPA Expert" degree? Imaginary University?

Go fighting Imaginaries!!!!

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:39 am Subject:

Browsing his site was worthwhile. I needed a hearty laugh. Debt collectors are breaking the law if they will not disclose their personal phone/addy/SSN--My @$$!

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:53 am Subject:

Collectors: You can't sue us!! We are supposed to sue you!!!!

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:18 am Subject:

The only truth I see to this is anyone can be sanctioned by the court for filing garbage lawsuits. Don't get me started on the truth behind Creditwrench who is a low life con man. Per Fdcpa if a collector is sued,the debt cannot be used as a defense or counterclaim. They can still file a civil suit on the debt.

Guest · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:04 am Subject:

What part of the FDCPA says that cajunbulldog? I read through it and must have missed it. It would be nice to know so when I sue a debt collector I can at least prove it.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:52 am Subject:

FDCPA lawsuit and action to collect underlying debt are not compulsory
counterclaims. Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc., 638 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir.
1981). Consumer is therefore not barred from filing separate FDCPA
action even when previously sued on the debt. Debt collector may not
maintain collection action as counterclaim in federal court - Kuhn v.
Account Control Technology, Inc., 865 F.Supp. 1443 (D. Nev. 1994).

In FDCPA litigation brought against the debt collector, the collector normally may
not assert a counterclaim for the underlying debt. Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc., 638 F.2d
1134 (8th Cir. 1981); Leatherwood v. Universal Business Service Co., 115 F.R.D. 48 (W.D.N.Y.
1987); Gutshall v. Bailey & Assoc., 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 12153 (N.D.Ill. 1991); Venes v.
Professional Service Bureau, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. App. 1984) (is permissive); Hart v.
Clayton-Parker & Assoc., 869 F. Supp. 774 (D.Ariz. 1994); Ayres v. National Credit Management
Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5629, 1991 WL 66845, at *4 (E.D. Pa. April 25, 1991); Zhang v.
Haven-Scott Assoc., Inc., 95-2126, 1996 WL 355344, 1996 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8738 (E.D.Pa., June
21, 1996).
The following case work was taken from Ed Combs & Dale Pittman's web sites.

*Name:
*Email:
*Phone:
*Zip:
Debt

	* denotes required field

Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 122,000 members

FDCPA lawsuits, the truth on 1692k

Members Area

Free Debt Counseling

Ask the community

Featured Discussions

Featured Articles

Question of the Month

Useful Links

Recent Forum Discussions

Recent Blog Post