|
Quick question: Need to know where to find public listing of complaints againt Lending Tree mortgage brokers in Tenn Many thanks for any answer. My other question... I wrote a check 18 months ago to the phone company. It never cleared the bank, and was purchased by Equifax Check Services.. |
|
|
|
Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the right answer to your question. I'll do some poking around and get back to you if I got an answer. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably know..
|
|
But nobody seems to have it..
Radi8. +++++++++++++++++. That's because there isn't any check-so son't pay it!!. LB 59. 1* You could pay all 3 of them to prevent that... |
|
Oh, by the way, the CA that said they would sue you is in violation of the FDCPA just by saying that they would sue you (especially if the never sue you)..
Don't pay. I hope you sent those validation requests CRRR???.. |
|
807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e].
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:. (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken... |
|
!! Im sure that that's the plan !!.
Im not against paying what I owe, but I need to find out who I owe. The phone co. is satisfied because Efx check services paid them off & bought the check.. I guess if somebody can produce the orig. check, I'll pay it. If not, no way. Safe plan?. Thanks for all the replies. Appreciate it!. Radi8.. |
|
If the CA has standing to sue, then there is NOTHING false or misleading about the statement..
People here seem to be real "wishful thinkers" when it comes to interpreting the FDCPA and FCRA. Hate me for saying that, but it is trrue, IMO... |
|
If they threaten to sue and don't, that is against the FDCPA...
|
|
I thought they had to PROVE the debt!!!.
If they don't have to PROVE it...then you can send a letter stating that YOU HAVE THEIR CHECK ON FILE FOR $2,258.95 AND YOU EXPECT PAYMENT IN 72 HOURS!!!.. |
|
Not necessarily...
If the CA has no intention to sue or no standing to sue, then it is a violation. FDCPA Sect 807 ("The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken."). Do you have any other authority for your position? It appears that the plain language of the statute cuts against your position... |
|
Come on now, LKH, I know that you have a rebuttal. you are not gonna let a Kid like me win that easily, are you?.
You know about the FDCPA, don't you?. Response coming or what??.. |
|
LKH is wrong (as is PAE). The creditor does not have to sue, they have to INTEND to sue at the time of making the statement. Making the statement does not legally bind them to sue; they ARE allowed to change their minds afterwards. This is why you will find very few cases at law regarding this issue - you would have to prove intent, which is close to impossible. For all practical purposes, these cases will probably revolve around whether or not the creditor CAN sue..
The Kid is wrong. If they do not intend to sue, the statement is false and misleading by definition. They MUST have the intent to sue; simply having standing does not allow them to use the threat of a lawsuit (which they never intend to file) to extort payment. This is admittedly almost impossible to PROVE (see above), but the statement is still legally false and misleading if they do not have the INTENT to sue at the time of making the statement.. My own take:. Of COURSE they can sue.. They aren't threatening to sue you for writing a bad check - that's a matter for criminal court to resolve. They're threatening to sue you for failure to pay a debt. Which you owed and haven't paid. So they're right. They do not have to show the check at all. And what constitutes "proof" of the debt depends on what judge you'd pull... |
|
So do you suggest paying with out any evidence of a check?..
|
|
They do not have to show the check at all.. I have your BOUNCED CHECK~$1,358.52...I will give you a week to pay.. I have NO proof...but you said NONE IS NEEDED..... |
|
LB and George -.
You may both be right, and I may have spoken too soon. I didn't notice that this was EQ CHECK Systems, etc. But it seems to me that the issue here is that there is an unpaid phone bill. If the phone bill was paid, it doesn't make any difference if there was a bad check, and it doesn't matter if they produce it or not - the debt was paid and the issue is closed. So I'm not sure if these people need to prove that there was a bounced check, or if they just need to prove that there is an unpaid debt.. But since I don't know the answer, I withdraw my statement. LKH and The Kid are both still wrong, though... |
|
I just thought it would be NICE to have them PROVE that you really OWED the money...NO CHECK sounds like NO PROOF...so NO payment can be demanded.....
|
