Share post
Debt Consolidation Forums Collection agencies and creditors forums

National Enterprise Systems: How to deal with this debt collector

member profile picture
Posts: 2
Credits: 0
[Donate]

HEllo and thank you for this valuable resource!

I'm having some trouble with National Enterprise Systems.

They have been calling several times a day for weeks. I have had some shouting matches with them and they have threatened to call every single morning, first thing "so we're the first thing you think of when you wake up."

So when I did get a contact there and discuss my debt, she threatened "legal proceedings" if they don't get a resolution immediately.

I was scared and gave her my bank info for an initial payment after the holiday. Now I think that was a very bad idea (read somewhere that they will often take more than was agreed), and am scared about what they might do.

They keep calling constantly. When I try to get this particular contact on the phone, she is always busy.

What should I be doing here?




I recently worked at this horrible place. National Enterprise Systems is the collection agency from hell. It's the devil's worst nightmare. Employees are trained to collect according to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act but once on the floor in their respective departments collectors are told to forget everything they learned.

My supervisor, Bryan Howard under the alias of Paul Stevens, regularly provided a second voice to collectors having trouble closing collections. This idiot would identify himself to callers as a federal agent, an NES attorney, etc., anything to try to scare the debtor into paying. He would actually tell debtors and their spouses that a lawsuit had been filed and if the account is not paid by postdated check by a certain time that day a deputy of the court was coming to serve the debtor on his job. I witness this on a daily basis all day long. B. Howard is neither a federal agent, attorney nor any of the other things he claims to be and NES don't sue debtors. All are clear violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Debtors are talked to as if they're inhuman. Even when the debtor is not home the person taking the message is treated like dirt. I will never forgot my supervisor shouting at an 81 year old African-American woman for not getting a pen and paper to take the message. "I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE 81 YEARS OLD HE SCREAMED AT THE WOMAN." I've witness collectors hollering at kids "GO GET YOUR FATHER."

You are not supposed to talk to spouses????????in certain states--about their significant others???????? debt unless given permission by the spouse to do so. This rule is ignored at NES. In fact when I left training I put the document about the spouse rule on my cubicle wall to reference only to have it snatched and trashed by Bryan Howard who said I wouldn????????t need it.

The owners Ernest Pollack, his wife, and two sons: Scott and pie-faced Chris are well aware of what is going on. These people are hands on owners. They constantly walk the call room floors, note the individual collectors and group collection sales and hear all the violations first hand. The more a collector screams at a debtor the more they like it. People actually clap and cheer when a collector goes off on a debtor. All that concerns these greedy money grabbers is how much money they are collecting at any given time.

Payments are demanded in full although they do offer settlements that are too demanded in full. Money orders and mail-in payments are not accepted, only postdated checks over-the-phone or Western Union Transfers for Citi Bank accounts. Some other creditors do allow NES to also take payment by credit card. For the postdated checks debtors are asked to give their accounting and routing numbers. NES, the scumbags they are, attempts to take the money out before the postdate. Nice company huh!

Collectors and supervisors once provided with bank info by the debtor call banks automated customer service numbers to obtain how much money they have in their accounts. We have their social security numbers so getting info this way is like taking candy from a baby. Some banks have safeguards against this and required you talk to a live person. They also work this wickedness on debtors???????? credit card accounts or the credit card accounts of the debtors???????? spouse, mother, father, etc. I remember one collector on the phone with a debtor saying ???????Your Mother Has $7,000 On Her Card She Can Use;??????? She Can Pay This Debt For You!???????

If anyone needs someone who's "been there" in any of their legal actions against this despicable company I????????m your guy.

Sub: #41 posted on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 14:07

Unregistered


I see these people all over the place & still can't figure out why people are talking to them on the phone more than once. Tell them to send all inquiries thru the mail so you have everything in writing. Failure to do so is a violation of law. Record & note every violation. Do not give them bank account info, if you have, close the account & get another one before they drain your account. Send a validation letter certified mail. Most time they can't cough up the information you request, particularly the part amount the money you owe THEM, not the people they bought the debt from. If they violate the law several times you can sue them for it. I have burned 4 companies for a total of $6k over this. Want to stop them - sue them.

Sub: #42 posted on Wed, 06/25/2008 - 17:06

Unregistered


Tell them to send all inquiries thru the mail so you have everything in writing. Failure to do so is a violation of law

Unfortunately there is no case law to back that up. You can request that all communication be via USPS but they don't have to obey that. The only provision limiting contact is in sec 805 of the fdcpa pertaining to times they can call, calls to your employer, or if you are represented by an attorney:

(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock am and before 9 o'clock pm, local time at the consumer's location;

(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or

(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.

The concept of the "limited C&D" is not enforceable and is not actionable if the CA(JDB) violates. It's an all or nothing statute:


(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.

(d) For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.

Sub: #43 posted on Wed, 06/25/2008 - 17:27

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4671 | Credits: )

actually, that is incorrect. You quoted the portion of the law that shows this:

[quote]a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock am and before 9 o'clock pm, local time at the consumer's location;[/quote]

In other words, the law clearly states that the collector has the legal right to assume that between 8 am and 9 pm is an acceptable time to call IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE CONTRARY. So, by notifying them in writing that they are not to call you at all, you have just provided them with the knowledge to the contrary. By doing that, you have conformed to the letter of the law and as such they must do the same. right there, the law says that they can only assume thats an acceptable time to call if they havent been told otherwise--once they have been told otherwise, that right to assume is gone.

Sub: #44 posted on Wed, 06/25/2008 - 21:34

Unregistered


Since there is no case law to back up the assumption that all calls to a consumer are inconvenient, your argument has no weight. A "limited c&d" is a great concept but that's all it is, a concept. Until a judge rules in favor of the consumer on this, it will just have to remain a fantasy for us to argue back and forth. This topic has been hashed out over and over again on every board that I have been on. I used to think as you do until I started researching the case law that everyone was throwing out. The conclusion is, as I stated above, a topic of heated debate but has not been given the weight of law. The first few months of credit repair, I took the advice of others and added the "all my personal business is being handled via USPS, all calls to home are recorded and prohibited at work, yada yada yada". I have sent out dozens of DV's for both myself and my wife and not once did I receive adequate validation only more calls and more dunning letters. The "validation" I did receive more often than not was printed on the CA's letterhead and though technically they complied with the letter of the law, I do not find it acceptable. In all other cases they ignored it completely, sold it down the road to the next JDB, or returned it to the OC. It wasn't until I filed a BBB complaint on a well know JDB that I figured out what the deal was. The JDB's response was that I requested they cease all contact with me. Now that was not what I requested but since its an all or nothing statute, they took it as a cease comm. That makes it very difficult to force a CA to validate if they consider your "limited C&D" as a full cease comm. Now I limit it to "All calls to home are recorded and all call to my employer place my employment in jeapardy". Since I am now an informed consumer I generally know more about the law than most CA's that call me. I do not allow them to intimidate me and I ask lots of questions and generally become a pain in the a$$..... :twisted:

Sub: #45 posted on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 01:20

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4671 | Credits: )

Quote:
Since there is no case law to back up the assumption that all calls to a consumer are inconvenient, your argument has no weight.


thats the point--by notifying them it isnt an assumption. It is the statement you have made. The only assumption involved in the language of the law is where they are allowed to assume that 8am to 9pm is reasonable, "in the absence of knowledge to the contrary". You have just taken away that absence of knowledge to the contrary when you inform them that they cannot call you. Its the same exact premise that is involved when the law states that they cannot call you at work if they learn that you cannot receive such calls at work. The premise is this--once they learn that the call is not allowed, they cannot call you at that time or place.

Quote:
Until a judge rules in favor of the consumer on this, it will just have to remain a fantasy for us to argue back and forth.


if we follow your take, no judge ever will because no one would ever present the argument. Every example of precedent and case law had to start somewhere, no?

Quote:
The "validation" I did receive more often than not was printed on the CA's letterhead and though technically they complied with the letter of the law, I do not find it acceptable.


with all due respect to you, this statement makes me question your knowledge on this matter, because sending you statements on a CA's letterhead in no way meets the requirements of the law with regard to validation. The FTC even issued opinion letters to clarify this point--the intent of that statute is to 100% prevent just anyone from typing up a statement and claiming you owe them money. Thats why the documentation, in order to comply with the law, MUST be original, come from the original creditor, and not be typed up "in-house". The law itself, the FTC's statements concerning this law, my experience in court and research, as well as my attorney's experience, all disagree with your statement. They did NOT "technically comply with the law" if they sent you "validation" on their own letterhead. The law is very clear on the matter that they must obtain the info from the original creditor, not type it up themselves. And, if they had copies of original documents, why would they bother wasting the time it takes to type up that info on a new sheet of paper?

Quote:
That makes it very difficult to force a CA to validate if they consider your "limited C&D" as a full cease comm. Now I limit it to "All calls to home are recorded and all call to my employer place my employment in jeapardy".


---which they in turn can argue to the court has the same exact effect as a "limited C&D". You see, they have the right to not wish to be recorded. Nothing in the law states that they are required to subject themselves to being recorded. So, think about it--since basically anything can be argued in a court of law, doesnt your statement then serve as a way for them to argue that they couldnt communicate with you at that point either? A "limited C&D takes away the phone calls, and if its company policy for that CA that they dont subject themselves to being recorded(most of them say this), then who would call you back?

I submit to you that your method puts them in the exact same position as a limited C&D, and can easily be argued as such in court. If an employee of a CA isnt allowed by his employer to stay on a call once he learns he is being recorded, how can he call you back to inform you of anything if it could put HIS job in jeopardy? Nto saying thats my argument, but if I were a collector, thats exactly what I would say....

At the same time, it can be argued that no other number is safe for them to call--it is illegal for them to make you incur expenses due to their efforts to contact you, so calling your cell phone and using your minutes could techincally be illegal at that point. so, in the end, your current method really carries no more weight than the limited C&D does, and it puts them in the exact same position. Not saying I feel sorry for them, but this is about finding something that works...

Sub: #46 posted on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 12:25

skydivr7673 skydivr7673
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 2036 | Credits: )

if we follow your take, no judge ever will because no one would ever present the argument. Every example of precedent and case law had to start somewhere, no?

It's argued everyday in courtrooms around the country and still not incorporated into statute.

with all due respect to you, this statement makes me question your knowledge on this matter, because sending you statements on a CA's letterhead in no way meets the requirements of the law with regard to validation. The FTC even issued opinion letters to clarify this point--the intent of that statute is to 100% prevent just anyone from typing up a statement and claiming you owe them money

I'm assuming you're referring to the Wollman opinion? You might want to actually read it sometime. You might also read sec 809 of the fdcpa. It's very clearly spelled out:

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


The law is very clear on the matter that they must obtain the info from the original creditor, not type it up themselves. And, if they had copies of original documents, why would they bother wasting the time it takes to type up that info on a new sheet of paper?

Again...what law? See sec 809 above. Nothing about anything from the OC. Just verification or name and address of the OC. Verification is likely your name and an amount on the assignment of debt.

Addressing your "interpretation" of a "limited C&D", I've pretty much spelled that out in several posts. Again....it's an all or nothing statute and you can add it all you want but there's no teeth to it. It's not enforceable and not actionable.

You can question my knowledge if you like but it is based on research and reality, not YOUR interpretation of how thing ought to be. I would suggest that you do some more research yourself. When you find case law that supports your opinion, let me know. Good Luck!

Sub: #47 posted on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 17:52

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4671 | Credits: )

Quote:
It's argued everyday in courtrooms around the country and still not incorporated into statute.


thats fine, but when I personally argued it in court, I made my point and my case appears to be won...more on that soon.

Quote:
I'm assuming you're referring to the Wollman opinion? You might want to actually read it sometime. You might also read sec 809 of the FDCPA. It's very clearly spelled out:


I'm referring to the law as well as the Wollman letter....and I dont need to go back and reread it again...I think you might, however:

[quote]This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .??????? in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer.

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.[/quote]

note--since it is clear that the intent is to protect consumers from debt collectors claiming amounts owed that arent real or accurate, what possible proof could be legitimately displayed by a CA using their own letterhead? Would that prove to the consumer that the information came from the OC, as the law intends? NO, absolutely not. And there is no confusion on this--the consumer is the one to whom the verification of the debt is addressed...

It is simply put in that letter that the proof of the debt must come from the original creditor--and at the same time, regardless of the source of the numbers, putting anything on the debt collector's letterhead does not in any way convey such verification. The only way to document the debt legally and properly is for the CA to provide a copy of the original creditor's documentation, because that is where the numbers have to come from anyways. It is not enough to get the documentation, then retype it and hold the copies of originals in case the consumer isnt satisfied with a CA letterhead. That defeats the entire purpose for, and the protection provided by, the statute! The law also states this, I guess you just interpreted it differently than everyone else does.

Quote:
Again...what law? See sec 809 above. Nothing about anything from the OC. Just verification or name and address of the OC. Verification is likely your name and an amount on the assignment of debt.


Well, tell me this--exactly where else would proof of such an agreement come from?

--you enter into a credit agreement with ABC Bank.
--You default on the loan.
--four years later, a collection agency youve never heard of or done business with calls you and wants payment.

Pop quiz--what is the ONE AND ONLY PLACE where proof that you even entered into this agreement can be obtained? ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, thats where! Now, that doesnt mean that they cannot already have copies of it, but that documentation is precisely the only thing that would show that the consumer even entered into the agreement. Cases get dismissed all the time where the CA sues and doesnt have that proof "from the original creditor". Again, I suggest that you go back and read that Wollman letter again, because it contains the actual intent behind the statute. A little common sense is the only other thing thats needed to connect those dots.
Quote:
You can question my knowledge if you like but it is based on research and reality, not YOUR interpretation of how thing ought to be. I would suggest that you do some more research yourself.

youre quite clearly not aware of who I am or what my background is. I didnt study the laws in college and spend a whole ton of other time researching all of these statutes, both federal and state, so that I could rely only on "my interpretation". Might I humbly suggest that you check yourself a tad or three. My knowledge, while not infallible, certainly speaks for itself, and the number of people here who have gone to court with that knowledge and won seems to increase by the week. Gee, I guess you arent dealing with someone's "interpretation" after all, son. As for case law, I will be sure to let you know when one of my two current cases is concluded so that you could look it up--some of these issues were raised by me in there and I certainly made my point clear to the court. The court did in fact uphold my contention in the process.

Sub: #48 posted on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 20:25

skydivr7673 skydivr7673
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 2036 | Credits: )

Hey guys! You both have valuable information to share with the other members here! Your backgrounds and experiences obviously differ, but you both desire to help others overcome their debt problems. That makes both of you respected members of this forum, so wouldn't it be better if the two of you also respected each other, even though your opinions might differ at times?

Sub: #49 posted on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 21:38

Unregistered


thats fine, but when I personally argued it in court, I made my point and my case appears to be won...more on that soon.

And hopefully you will set a precedent with it that others can argue.


I'm referring to the law as well as the Wollman letter....and I dont need to go back and reread it again...I think you might, however:

Actually I have a copy of it tacked to my office wall.
I understand the original intent of the letter. I also understand that FTC opinion letters are not binding on a court. They may influence the judge- or they may not. Because the standard for a CA(JDB) to respond to a DV is very low. The literal words in the fdcpa is "name and address of the original creditor". That standard is only minimally modified by the Wollman FTC opinion letter. It requires the CA(JDB) to verify their infile info with the original creditor and send that info to the consumer. Unfortunately, most verification is electronic so there's just not a lot to send. When we DV a CA(JDB), we send a whole laundry list of things we want to see as proof - copies of statements, complete accounting, copies of contract documents, etc. Unfortunately, we don't have the power to require the CA(JDB) to provide any of those things with a simple DV. It's an imperfect tool and the consumer is only provided a limited arsenal by the FDCPA. There isn't a FDCPA cop that we can call for back up.

Pop quiz--what is the ONE AND ONLY PLACE where proof that you even entered into this agreement can be obtained? ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, thats where!


Really, the only way to compel them to provide us with those things is thru the discovery stage of litigation. Personal experience is that a DV does not often deter collection activity. If timely, it will cease collection activity until the CA(JDB) responds but with such a low standard of proof that they have to provide, they pretty much do as they please. The OP's experience, as well as my own, with Asset is proof of that.

Cases get dismissed all the time where the CA sues and doesnt have that proof "from the original creditor".

Yes. I have had 2 myself thrown out for that very reason. 1 with and 1 w/o prejudice. The one that was dismissed w/o prejudice has been re-filed and I have enough in counterclaims to offset the amount they say I owe. More on that as it happens.


youre quite clearly not aware of who I am or what my background is

You're right! I don't know you from Adam. I haven't looked at your profile so I don't know if you have your credentials hung out for everyone to see. I haven't read a lot of your posts either except those that seem to be aimed at proving me wrong.


Might I humbly suggest that you check yourself a tad or three. My knowledge, while not infallible, certainly speaks for itself, and the number of people here who have gone to court with that knowledge and won seems to increase by the week. Gee, I guess you arent dealing with someone's "interpretation" after all, son.

First of all, there is nothing HUMBLE about you from what I can see. Arrogant would be a more descriptive adjective. No one's knowledge is infallible, mine included. But, despite what my Avatar depicts, I don't have my head up my a$$. And while I have no doubt that many members here have successfully defended themselves in court, is it humble for you to take credit for it?

Anyway....I didn't join this board to engage in arguments and personal attacks on or with other members. They're counter productive and though they may be entertaining for other members, that's not why people come here. They want answers and advice on their situation. I don't mind lively debates but sometimes you have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to conceded to that. Are you skydivr7673?

What I did join this board for is that I feel that I have something of value to contribute to my fellow debtors and consumers that post here. I will leave it to the other member of the forum judge whether the advice I give is sound and rational. I admit I do not have a background in the legal profession but I deal with attorneys on a daily basis. Believe me, I didn't just wake up one day and decide that I wanted to be a consumer advocate. My experience was like a lot of others here, a surprise phone call followed a few weeks later by a knock on the door from the Sherriff with a summons for an out of statute debt. I won't go into all the gory details other than I successfully defended myself, but more than anything else, it pissed me off so much that I became obsessed with the whole thing. All my free time now and every moment that I can spare is in research and credit repair. I have managed to erase most of the derogatories from my credit reports (only 2 left). I have opened $12000 in new tradelines and boosted my FICO's from the low 500's to the high 600's in 8 month's. I'm in the process of cleaning up my wifes reports and have helped several friends and co-workers with theirs. I'm very active in other forums and only stumbled across this one when one of my employees came to me asking for help because of harrassment by a PDL bottomfeeder. I know this is completely off topic and I apologize to the OP for threadjacking. I'll just wrap this up agreeing with Guests last post:

Hey guys! You both have valuable information to share with the other members here! Your backgrounds and experiences obviously differ, but you both desire to help others overcome their debt problems. That makes both of you respected members of this forum, so wouldn't it be better if the two of you also respected each other, even though your opinions might differ at times?

Sub: #50 posted on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 05:03

Unregistered



Page loaded in 0.183 seconds.