From my personal experience Riscuity owns your debt at this time#1 You have not received any notification of the ACH debit #2 that is illegal #3 is any one really helping you? If not listen closely NO ONE has the right other than the ORIGINAL CREDITOR (CONTRACT HOLDER) to debit your account. A (redeposit) can only happen if the debt has not been purchased by an outside agency. Contact Riscuity, make a formal complaint to the proper personal and make arrangements after you receive your letter. Do not EVER assume that ANY ONE can just debit your account. It seems that you are worried because you have so many loans out. If you owed a loan and that institution was not able to collect it. Riscuity bought it and is now trying to force you through your assets to pay THEM (not the original creditor). Remember Riscuity has purchased your debt so they have paid the creditor for you. They should not go into your checking account just as they cannot come into your house and make you empty your pockets. Why haven't you called them? I would if someone was playing with my well being. Let me know what happens

MK

MK--I just went to the bank Friday to do an unauthorized ACH so I am waiting until the ACH debit is reversed then I will call them. I have never heard of this company Riscuity until I seen the ACH debit on Friday. Good chance that I look at the my bank account every day that I got to catch it before they actually got the money in their hands. I just got my checking account straight from the year of payday loans that I had. I did not think I had anymore loans out there. After I found out what Riscuity was I was wondering why they never contacted me before they took money out. If I owe something I will pay it, but it will be thru money orders, no checking account. I learned my leason with this. Thanks for everyones help and input. These boards have helped me alot.

Let me tell you how they do this. They purchase your bad check. They take your check info and load into a database along with the others. They then upload all of this to their company that processes their ACH and what ever they get paid for they get paid for then they start their calling on the ones that did not pay or were caught like you did. All of this is illegal. They never send out notification of the transaction from your account and they don't have any copies as proof to you. So make them prove it.

Ok on Monday I recieved an email from Riscuity stating they purchased my payday loan from Zip Cash. I was checking back to see if I finished paying them and I thought I did. This loan was back in 2004. I looked at what bank statements I had online and I can only see the withdrawals they took in February and March. They said that I can contact them are they will contact me. I would like to contact them before they start calling me at work. What should I ask them to send me so that I can see how much the loan was for and what I paid so far? The other payday loans I paid was with the original company so I never encountered this problem. Any help would be appreicaited. I finally got all calls to stop at work and dont need anymore. I guess they are mad now that I stopped the ACH debit from going through.

[jj]

net, first of all is the debt valid and do you agree that the anount they say you owe is correct? If so then all you need to request in your validation letter is written documetation that they have in fact purchased your debt from the original creditor. This proof should clearly establish that your OC has indeed sold the debt and should contain enough information to allow you to independently verify this.

If you have anu doubts about the validity of the debt and/or the claimed amounts owed, then you need to send a full and complete debt validation letter asking them to show proof of the amounts owed and full and complete legal documentation of the debt.

Remember that in general a CA will take the easiest way out to get the most money they can. Keep this in mind and negotiate based on what you can afford not what they want. It is not a bad idea to proactively contact them and take the initiatinve do it writing either by email or snail mail. in your first written communication to them state that htey are not allowed to call your work and that you wish to deal only in written form.

JJ, I dont know if the debt is valid. Do you know where I can find an example of a debt validation letter? Also will the letter get them to tell me what I paid to Zip Cash? Should I contact Zip Cash?

[david]

I have picked up a debt validation letter from this site for you. Please have a look.

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com...s/sample6.html

Go through this page and know more about the debt validation procedure. When you ask a company to validate the debt, it is the responsibility of the company to bring forward the following details. Even if they can't produce all the items, it should be clear that the CA has bought the debt from the creditor legally. Read this page for more information.

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/validation.html

[jj]

the validation of the debt should include the original amount of the debt, the amount of any payments applied to the debt (and date) and the current balance. any fees. interest etc needs to be itemized and if niterest the method of calculation needs to be stated.

I notice several people giving what I feel is wrong information. MOST payday loans have a notice in the P-note that states the OWNER can run, re-run with no guidelines to number of times an ACH or check until the bill is paid in full, Riscuity is the owner now as they purchase the debts. they do NOT have to get your okay to run the check, they already have it in the note signed. They do by law have to give you proof if you request it in writing, proof would be a copy of the check front and back, if you don't want a call at work you need to make sure you send certf mail a notice staying the time you can be reach by phone or an address you can be reached at. state you do not want at any time calls to your job, your spouse or family homes or jobs, make sure you clearly state do not call wife, parents etc at home or work. I also suggest you close any account they might have numbers to, they WILL rerun the check and the agreement you signed with the original loan gives them the right to do it.

[Teleport]

Originally Posted by fdcpa Coll Auditor

payday loans have a notice in the P-note that states the OWNER can run, re-run with no guidelines to number of times an ACH or check until the bill is paid in full.

This statement is correct, but the amount of times to run the ACH are usually limited to 2 times a day on each payday. Your financial institutuion usually will only allow for that many times from the same merchant. If many times were allowed, then the payday companies would be hitting your account 2 times a day each day.

The payday loan companies can continue this process for months if need be, till the loan is paid off. However each time they run into a problem with NSF, they attach their $29 NSF fee, increasing the amount to pay back.

Reading over your loan agreements will clear up any confusion on this.

Regards-
Mike

[jj]

some paydayloan contracts do not contain an assignability clause and as such if sold they may not be enforceable by the debt buyer, although this is someting that has to be challenged in court
. Debt buyers are also considered collectors under the fdcpa and subject to validation. Such validation can and should include legal proof of ownership of the debt.
the advice to close the account is right on the money.

I did an audit for the business or most of the sale of portflo out on the web that is now Riscuity paper.I NEVER worked for them, I worked for an other co. looking into this paper, they DO,,,,have the clause, most 99% all do if you read the small, and I mean very small print on the back. I did not mean they can run the checks more than once each day, I mean to say they can continue to run the ACH until the bill is paid or the account is closed. In most cases they will do it every 4-6 wks, around the 1st, 15th most paydays for people. JJ I don't know who you got your information from but in sales you purchase the same rights as the original lender. The SOL everything runs the same, old payday loan co did not have things together but I can tell you the ones lending over the past 2 yrs do, they are covered, and now that banks do not give you the orig check back they can issue statements of rejection with the account information so remember to review the contract not just the check information. the safe way is to close any old accounts, open new and possibly at a different bank, or have a spouse be the main party on the account, (using his or her ss# to open) collection agencies can not garnish a account unless court approval, if you change the account they can not touch it unless you are taken to court, a judgement obtain then and only then can they attach you new banking account. And again that also depends on your state and the laws in the state you live in. You safe way is always request proof, review the proof closely, then if you owe it, pay it or start paying, Money orders only, pay each and every month until paid. put a cease comm with the payments and a notice you will pay each month x amt until paid and make sure you do it. They will not like it but they will not process it further if you are paying each month. now don't go paying 1.00, that DOES NOT stop action, pay 25.-50.00 on a bal up to 1000.00 like I said they may not like but you will soon see it paid out. just KEEP your MO proof each month. THese bills get sold so oftern sometimes they resell a paid out loan. keep it like you would keep a IRS folder.

[jj]

auditor, while you might be able to purchase the rights, one can argue in court about the assignability of those rights and whether or not the contract permits such assignment. My information is sound, and yes I realize that this is something that has to be argued in court and that judges may not rule in the debtors favor. that aside thank you for the clear and accurate discussion ono how to protect one's self. your willingness to share your knowledge is appreciated.

[LCW]

JJ I don't know who you got your information from but in sales you purchase the same rights as the original lender.

The information is question (Does a debt collector who purchases a debt assume full rights as the original creditor? NO) come from the Federal Trade Commission in several staff opinions, however its most clearly spelled out in a staff opinion to Arbuckle of midland credit management. The staff opinion can be viewed at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa...s/arbuckle.htm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection
~
Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
Attorney


December 22, 1993

Ms. Kimberlee Arbuckle
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT
500 West First Street
Post Office Box #576
Hutchinson, Kansas 67504

Dear Ms. Arbuckle:

This responds to your letter dated December 2, 1993, inquiring whether Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("fdcpa" or "Act"). You report that MCM "purchases portfolios of delinquent accounts receivable for the purpose of profitable recovery, resale and cure. These accounts are owned solely by MCM . . ."

Section 803(6) of the FDCPA defines the term "debt collector" as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." In our view, a party that purchases delinquent accounts from the party to which the debts were originally owed and attempts to collect them from the consumer debtors fits clearly within that definition. The party is attempting to collect debts that were "owed or due another" and the fact that title to the accounts is passed to the collector in no way changes that fact.

In the leading case on point, involving a company whose business included the purchase of large volumes of checks that had been dishonored and subsequent collection of the checks from their makers (in the same manner as MCM buys defaulted accounts and thereafter attempts to collect from the account debtors), the court wrote persuasively that the purchaser is covered by the FDCPA. It gave short shrift to the fact that the party had actually purchased the checks in question:

By use of the language "owed or due another" Congress was attempting to exclude those entities that extend credit from the effects of the Act. Congress intended to protect borrowers from "third persons who regularly collect debts for others." (Italics by court; citation omitted). (The purchaser) is a third party collecting a debt originally owed to another. . . . It cannot escape the spirit of the Act by the technicality of purchasing the debt upon default so that title technically rests in itself.

Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1293 (D. Del. 1990)

The only theory for exclusion of a party such as MCM from the "debt collector" definition (and thereby from coverage under the FDCPA) is that it is a "creditor."(1) Section 803(4) defines "creditor" as "any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or trans-fer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another." Since the accounts that MCM buys are delinquent when purchased and are being transferred for the purpose of collection, we believe that MCM is within the class that the "creditor" definition expressly "does not include."(2) The words "for another" at the end of the clause excepting assignees from the definition of creditor in no way changes this result:

(T)he excluding factors in the exception are that the debts are the result of an assignment or transfer and that the debts were already in default at the time of assignment or transfer. With the phrase "for another" at the end of the exception, Congress merely intended that the debts should have originally belonged to another and that the creditor was therefore in effect a third-party or independent creditor. (Italics by court)

Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1485 (M.D.Ala. 1987). Accord, Holmes, supra, at 1293.

In sum, it is our view that a party that obtains consumer obligations in default for the purpose of collection is a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, even if that party actually purchases the accounts from the original creditor.

The views set forth in this informal staff opinion letter are not binding on the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff

1. Section 803(6)(A) only specifically exempts creditors' officers and employees. However, it "seems clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended that this exclusion cover creditors themselves as well as their employees." Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1291n.3 (D.Del. 1990), citing Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1484 (M.D.Ala. 1987).

2. See the comment on this subsection in our Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50101 (Dec. 13, 1988.)

there are several other FTC staff opinions available on the FTC web site regarding this and and many other issues. They can all be found at:

[jj]

thanks Clay, I was using my own experience in contract law, having negotiated several million dollars in contracts over the years. It was nice for you to provide the backup info.

I fail to understand what you are saying, one should know anyone collections by the agency falls under fdcpa, that does not alter the contract being collected, nor does it state they can not redeposit checks. It only says the law views then as 3rd party collections falling under the FDCPA, the FDCPA does not in any way alter the contract for redepositing the checks. I am sorry but some how maybe I missed something. the rights are not altered in this statement, only that the agency purchasing falls under the FDCPA, and if you read the FDCPA it has guidelines one must follow to assure harrassment does not happen or other violations of contact, 3rd party disclosure etc. nothing to do with purchasing paper contracts. The purchaser does have the rights to redeposit or collect the debt as the owner at the time. remember first party collections do not fall under FDCPA, that is what this letter is about, not the content of the purchased contract.