DV Question - Daniel N Gordon & Assoc.
Date: Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:49
It has always been my intention to pay back Applied Card Bank in full, but wasn't able to until November 2009. I had not made payments to them for over a year, and of course, it was charged off in the amount of 1896.80. The amount of the debt was listed on my credit report by ACB as $1896, which is the amount I intend to pay back.
When I became financially able to start making payments on the ACB debt, I contacted DNG & Assoc., last fall. I started making payments of $250 last November, and this February's payment will be the fourth. So I'm making good progress.
So, here's some details I want to get straight. Did my contacting DNG absolve them of their responsibility to validate the debt, since they are a 3rd party? I'm not disputing the $1896 at all (although a 1/3 of it consist of exorbitant ACB fees). My question is regarding 9% interest that DNG is charging. They are charging it from the point in time I contacted them. Nothing accrued before that with ACB. So how are they able to charge 9%? I don't know if this interest will be forwarded to ABC, or if DNG will keep this for themselves. My initial concern that they were even forwarding the $250 payments to ACB has been alleviated for the most part. I checked out my credit report, and the debt is still listed with ACB, and has been going down by the amount of the payments.
Should I only pay the $1896? There will be approximately $160 in interest that I don't know what to do when the time comes at the end of my payments, which will be in June. When I called last month and asked if I could pay a lesser amount than the $250 initially agreed upon, the representative, Trevor, said that if they didn't receive my payment by the end of the month, "I would be forwarded to the legal department". Interesing, because one of their attorneys told me that as long as they were receiving payments of at least $100/month, every month, I was fine.
It seems like "if you don't pay this, you will be sued (which is basically what he was saying)", is a threat. Does this violate the FDCPA? I'm not trying to get out of paying the $1896 at all, but the interest seems questionable, and they say I have to pay it as well. I've been reading up on this firm. They have a very poor reputation, and Daniel N. Gordon has been reprimanded recently by the Oregon State Bar.
Do I have to pay this interest? Can they charge it, even without the DV request? Is their somewhat veiled threat to sue if I don't pay a certain dollar amount a violation of the FDCPA?
Is this firm working third party for the Applied Card. Agencies
Is this firm working third party for the Applied Card. Agencies are hired on contingency basis and are paid a percentage of whatever is collected...they just cannot keep what they feel like. Also, when accounts are sent to a collection law firm, it is usually with the intent that legal action be taken if the account is not paid voluntarily.
If the original contract specified interest charges, that can continue to accue.
DNG cannot attempt to collect the debt without validating. However, you made the move to pay it, which in effect invalidated that DV request.
Yes, as I stated in the post, DNG is a 3rd party collection firm
Yes, as I stated in the post, DNG is a 3rd party collection firm for ACB.
I'm not sure your last statement is correct, in terms of the dollar amount of the debt. As I stated, the debt was previously charged off for $1896 by ABC and has been consistently listed on my credit reports as such as recently as 30 days ago. I'm not sure whether the interest DNG is charging is legitimate just because I initiated the contact and never agreed to a dollar amount over the 1896 owed. The contact on my part would seem to implicitly acknowledge the $1896, but nothing more than that. But I could be wrong.
I am pretty sure they are going by what Oregon says they can cha
I am pretty sure they are going by what Oregon says they can charge for interest, you are in Oregon right? 9% is probably much lower than what the original contract would say...
STATE: OREGON
INTEREST RATE
- Statutory + Judgment: 9% simple interest per annum (Unless specified by contract)
poker - If it's 9% for Oregon - and that's what their charging -
poker - If it's 9% for Oregon - and that's what their charging - then I think you are likely correct. It would be a lot less hassle to pay the additonal $150 or so and be done with it.
But again, did my contacting them legally negate their obligation as a 3rd party to validate the debt? It seems like they were thumbing their noses at the DV request.
Since you contacted them to pay, they do not have to respond to
Since you contacted them to pay, they do not have to respond to the DV. They cannot contact you to collect without validating the debt but you turned the tables.
soaplady - What are you basing this on? Is this part of the FDC
soaplady - What are you basing this on? Is this part of the FDCPA? I would agree that contacting them implies agreement that I owe money, but the specifics of how much and how it was calculated - which were requested - would still seem to require being detailed. The question was not whether I owe or not - but how much I owe.
soaplady - Again, is your statement based on the law, or somethi
soaplady - Again, is your statement based on the law, or something else?
well, for one thing, you actually shot yourself in the foot on t
well, for one thing, you actually shot yourself in the foot on this one because you sent them a DV request and at the same time said "cease and desist-do not contact me". How are they to respond? They cannot legally contact you if you say "cease and desist". So how would they have validated anyways, even if they could? Keep this in mind-there is no provision within the law that allows for a "partial C&D"--meaning, if you said "only contact me by mail, do not call me", they would likely treat it as a full Cease and Desist. nothing in the law requires them to honor a request to only contact by mail.
Aside from that, the specific wording of the law states that they cannot take any collection effort without first answering a DV request. It does not say that they cannot accept any payment. So yes, you invalidated the DV letter on both counts. But the good news is that you are being responsible and paying your debt, and you are to be congratulated for that effort. Many people today choose to try to get out of what they know they legitimately owe.
Are you referring to the FDCPA, when you say "the law states.."?
Are you referring to the FDCPA, when you say "the law states.."?
The letter I used was taken pretty much verbattim from a poster in a thread a year or two ago. I don't recall anyone pointing out this dichotomy at the time, but what you say makes sense.
My question to soaplady was intended to determine if she was citing law, or if it was just what sounded like common sense. Laws aren't always "reasonable" or equivalent to "commom sense".
It is troubling to me that two mods in this thread were asked a
It is troubling to me that two mods in this thread were asked a simple and direct question - to cite a law to support their statements - and netiher one answered.
It makes me wonder whether their statements were just based on what sounded reasonable, rather than an actual legal citing.
Yes the FDCPA would state that: 15 USC 1692c(C) (c) Ceasing comm
Yes the FDCPA would state that: 15 USC 1692c(C)
(c) Ceasing communication
If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except—
(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further efforts are being terminated;
(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or
(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.
If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.
It does not say anywhere in the FDCPA that you can tell them to only contact you by mail. If your state has debt collection laws, you should look to see if they have anything that says you can send a debt collector a letter to not call you and only contact you by mail..
One other thing I want to point out, under the FDCPA, you have 30 days to dispute a debt after the initial communication by mail. If you make a payment during that 30 day period, you still have the rights to dispute the debt regardless BUT it still may restart the SOL.
Thank You. That's what I was looking for the first time. Why d
Thank You. That's what I was looking for the first time. Why did it take so long to respond? Did you actually know this when you made the statement, or did you research if after I posed the question?
I was aware of the 30 day issue and the request was made within 30 days via certified mail.
Quote:Originally Posted by goldhelmetThank You. That's what I wa
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldhelmet Thank You. That's what I was looking for the first time. Why did it take so long to respond? Did you actually know this when you made the statement, or did you research if after I posed the question? I was aware of the 30 day issue and the request was made within 30 days via certified mail. |
Just so you know, I am not a mod on here, I haven't looked at this topic until today, I thought one of the mods had answered you questions. As far as if I had to research it I am well versed in the FDCPA plus all the debt collection laws in my state.
Poker - My apologies. I thought one of the mods that I posed th
Poker - My apologies. I thought one of the mods that I posed the request to was responding. My point was that they should support the statements they are making with facts - like you just did.
goldhelmet-- please allow me to clarify a few things. 1--bei
goldhelmet--
please allow me to clarify a few things.
1--being a moderator doesnt mean we are on here 24/7. Moderators are not paid employees, in fact we volunteer and do not get paid at all. We log in when we have time and help out when we are able. Please refrain from acting on this forum like someone, somehow, isnt doing their job or something. This is a community of people who want to help each other, and an attitude of impatience will not help anyone. Even when we log in, that doesnt guarantee that we will see EVERY new post....there are a LOT of people that post here. Think about that, please, before you post such comments against moderators....
2--you had a question about the FDCPA. You wondered if the FDCPA is the law I was speaking about. Why not search the internet for the FDCPA text? This forum is a resource, and while it is a fantastic one, it is not the ONLY one. You will get help here when possible, but that should not cause an individual to stop looking for those answers themselves too. If you had taken just one minute to search the internet for "FDCPA full text", you would have had your answer days ago. You will find that many people here know quite a lot about debt collection laws, and we got that way by taking some initiative and researching for our situation, not by relying solely on someone else's posts in a forum.
3--Now youre changing your tune. FIRST you asked if I was speaking of the FDCPA or another law. NOW youre talking as if I offered you my opinion....well, I gave you 100% sound information. I told you, NOT from opinion, but I even mentioned that it is a LAW. So why are you here complaining that I only posted "what sounded reasonable" and didnt "support it with facts"?
Look, I am trying to be nice here, but to be frank, your post is out of line. This is a forum, and I am a volunteer here. And while I very much enjoy doing this, I will not have someone question the manner of the help I provide the way you have, without any basis. If you want specific legal advice, call an attorney, as this forum is NOT here to provide such advice for you. If you want to come in here and ask questions, we are more than happy to help. But please, dont come in here and demand that someone get back to you within your time frame....in addition to being a moderator here, I am a husband, father of three, I play bass guitar in a band at my church, I work more than full time, I moderate on a different forum as well, and I also help the authorities in investigating scam artists locally.....somehow I fit everything in and I enjoy all of it, but you do not get the right to try to demand anything about when someone will respond to your post. If you cannot get the idea from that, then I am sorry to say that we cannot help you. Aside from all of this, your specific question was "did I invalidate the FDCPA's requirement for debt validation by sending payment". Why would I be talking about any other law when that was the specific one that you yourself mentioned in your very first post? There is only one federal law that talks about debt validation....the FDCPA.
One last thing before I wrap this one up--you get what you pay for in this life. If you were paying me for my services, you would have every right to demand when I was made available to respond. The way I see it, you got your answer, you overthought it all and confused yourself, and then made demands on me like it was my fault that you forgot your own original question of the thread. But your help here came at no cost to you. Try that with an attorney sometime, you will find that you actually got quality responses and you got them FASTER than what most lawyers would usually do....and WITHOUT the $250 per hour fee.
Now that we're done with that, is there anything else with your debt situation that we can help with? I would be happy to answer any questions about that, that I can.
Wow - Skydiver - I did NOT change my tune at all!! Where do you
Wow - Skydiver - I did NOT change my tune at all!! Where do you get that? I asked the same question 3 times in a row. You said that is the law. I asked "what law is is based on, the FDCPA?". That means it's a QUESTION?? There are other laws - state laws, common law. I was ASKING you what you were basing your opinion on - you said "the law", so it was questionable to me when you couldn't provide specifics. That's when it made me wonder what you were basing it on (i.e, was it really based on the law).
I simply asked a reasonable question that didn't get answered. THAT IS NOT BEING CONFUSED OR OVER THINKING. Expecting a mod to be able to support a statement is REASONABLE and not a demand - it is a reasonable expectation.
Your post was very rude and your attitude really sucks.
As for the time frame issue - I realize you're not on here all the time. That's why I waited, and waited, and waited...
Quote:Originally Posted by goldhelmetWow - Skydiver - I did NOT
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldhelmet Wow - Skydiver - I did NOT change my tune at all!! Where do you get that? |
From your posts, like I said I did. First, it was "is this just your opinion, or is it the law". Well, that's really kinda wierd for you to post that, because you posted it in response to me saying "the law says". Think about this now--if I was only giving my opinion, I would not be telling you that the law says this. Then, you changed your tune to "well, a moderator should be able to support their comments with facts". And THEN, you switched gears to "why did it take you so long?" Youre just FULL of reasons to complain, so let's cut the crap already, ok?
Quote:
I asked the same question 3 times in a row. You said that is the law. I asked "what law is is based on, the FDCPA?". That means it's a QUESTION?? There are other laws - state laws, common law. I was ASKING you what you were basing your opinion on |
Well, let's see here. First, you came here specifically talking about the FDCPA and some of it's requirements, so it is clear to me at that point that you have at least some understanding that the FDCPA is the law that deals with this issue. Second, you clearly mentioned the FDCPA by name, and not any other law, so at that point it is clear to me what law we're already talking about. If it were a different law, perhaps I would have mentioned that?
Quote:
- you said "the law", so it was questionable to me when you couldn't provide specifics. That's when it made me wonder what you were basing it on (i.e, was it really based on the law). |
Wrong again. it was NEVER that I couldnt provide you anything, it was that I didnt see your posts again until the time that I responded. I went to college and studied these laws, and then did a lot more research on my own...and then I gained real-world practical experience with debt collection laws in my own travels. Believe me, I can provide plenty.
IQuote:
simply asked a reasonable question that didn't get answered. |
You asked a question that wasnt even seen, and when you had to wait four whole days, you even went as far as to go off on someone who wasnt even in the thread earlier, asking them "why did it take you SO LONG TO RESPOND???" FOUR DAYS, chief....and you actually had the nerve to criticize like that?? And you say MY attitude sucks!?!? Better take yourself a look in the mirror there, sport.
Quote:
THAT IS NOT BEING CONFUSED OR OVER THINKING. Expecting a mod to be able to support a statement is REASONABLE and not a demand - it is a reasonable expectation. |
Sorry, but no dice. If you had said it once, that would be one thing. but as you said yourself, you "asked the same question THREE TIMES....in only FOUR DAYS. And when someone answered you, you actually had the stones to whine and complain that IT TOOK SO LONG.......You couldnt even be bothered to check to see who posted pokertramp's reply--you were too busy being on the attack. So dont sit there telling me about "reasonable expectations". You expected that four days is simply too long to get an answer that you could have even had yourself....if you posted looking for an answer here, and you didnt get enough info, and you wanted to know badly enough, all you needed to do was go read the FDCPA. But you didnt want to know badly enough to even look for yourself, you just sat back and complained for four days, and then complained some more when someone responded. If you had to have that info faster, why the hell didnt you just search? You obviously know where to find the FDCPA because you have some knowledge about what it says--that much is clear from your first post.
I have a reasonable expectation myself--I expect that people who come here posting for help:
1--dont get an attitude because they didnt get the answer worded the exact way they wanted it.
2--dont give people attitudes for simply trying to help them.
3--dont lose their cool because they have to wait a few days for a reply.
4--CARE ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THAT THEY GET INVOLVED AND DO SOME RESEARCH THEMSELVES.
After all, how do you think the people here learned what they know? We researched it.....take the hint and stop making excuses just so you can complain some more.
Quote:
Your post was very rude and your attitude really sucks. |
MY attitude? You questioned whether or not the mods here are doing what they should be, and you dont know us from Adam.....you whined and complained at every turn.....about the mods, about the info you got, about WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO RESPOND.....give it a rest already. My attitude was a direct response to your posting over and over again, with nothing but complaining coming from you. And the really sad thing is this--if you took half the energy you wasted falsely complaining about the moderators here and used it to look up the law yourself, you would have had your answer all by yourself days ago. Dont come in here talking about my attitude when all youve done is look for reason after reason to complain.
Quote:
As for the time frame issue - I realize you're not on here all the time. That's why I waited, and waited, and waited... |
and complained.....and complained.....dude, really? youre gonna try this crap now? Youre gonna pretend that you sait there, patiently waiting? FOUR DAYS went between you asking a question and someone answering it, and you were SO impatient that you asked the same question three times within that 4 days, but then you blasted the wrong person when someone ELSE answered? How's about you stop peeing on my shoes and telling me its raining already? Yes, you got attitude from me....because you really need to give up the bitch-fest and grow up. Deal with it.