I'm pretty sure I want to go after ASSet

Dallas Student · 12-28-2006, 04:31 AM

I haven’t been a member of Infinite for that long. However, I have been a member of CB for some time. I have several “problem children” that I am working on.

I have come to the determination that I would like to pursue possibly suing ASSet Acceptance and need a little help in getting things in order. Oh yeah, I want to represent myself.

I have gotten pretty familiar with FDCPA and TFC.

Here is some of the background:

I got letters from Asset about three different accounts that they have back at the beginning of August 2006. I promptly sent them a request for validation of the debt. I’m sure many of you know what they send. Anyway, they sent me one of their computer-generated printouts. My signature was nowhere on the paperwork.

They then continue to send me collection letters. I sent them another letter letting them know that what they sent was not proper validation of the debts and that it had now been 30 days since the initial request had been sent to them, and that they were not to contact me regarding the debt that they evidentially weren’t able to validate. I told them that they are not to contact me and that if I find these entries on my credit reports including inquiries, that I would pursue legal actions.

Oh, did I mention that none of these debts appears on any of my three credit reports, as they were charged off back in 1993.

Jump ahead to November 2006. I had something else that I had disputed using True Credit, and Experian sent me an updated copy of my credit report. Moreover, what do I find, but Asset pulled a “soft” inquiry on my credit.

Which is continued collection efforts, after not providing proper validation.

So here I sit.

If I wanted to pursue them, in sending them a formal ITS, how would I go about doing that? I had heard from some people on other boards that an ITS usually falls on deaf ear, unless you include a “complaint” I believe it was.

So my question is do you think I have a case? I think I do, but not sure how much I would ask for.

If I do, how do I go about preparing my ITS? Should I also prepare a “complaint” so that they take me seriously? Or if not, what should I do with this one?

In case they don’t settle, how do I go about preparing to represent myself in court?

I’ve been looking for some site that can actually tell me the steps or processes that I go thru, as well as searching here to find information, since there are so many Texans here. However, I haven’t had much luck.

I am more than willing to try to figure it out on my own, if I can be directed in the right direction.

Thanks in advance and sorry so long.

direred · 12-28-2006, 07:39 AM

I'm tired and it's three thirty in the morning (so I'm not going to respond substantively at this hour because my brain isn't functioning), but I wanted to say welcome.

I would recommend the ITS with a draft of a complaint. That's usually been enough for me (though Merrick is currently working on my last nerve, which is why I'm still up).

For Asset, one thing that's been particularly effective is filing a complaint with the Michigan Attorney General.

jlynn · 12-28-2006, 09:12 AM

Just know that Asset has a habit of fighting to the dirty end. Also, if you are sending them an ITS, notify their bonding company...that usually gets CA's attention.

centex · 12-28-2006, 09:56 AM

If the debts are more than a decade old, it raises the question of why bother with the DV process. Send them the FOAD letter as it far beyond the SOL for both reporting and litigation. CC the underwriter and that should be the end of it.

On ancient debt, the DV process drags things out by interjecting an unnecessary step.

In the letter that is cc'ed to the underwriter, you could drop continued collectioninto the mix, but a single soft pull is not something that you would reasonably be able to show a harm from, which means it is not your pot at the end of a rainbow. It's old, so send the FOAD letter and simply wash your hands of them...

jlynn · 12-28-2006, 11:16 AM

Missed the fact the debts are 14 years old.

Dear Asswipe Acceptance.

Go Pound Sand,

Sincerely,
Dallas Student

JayinGR · 12-28-2006, 12:04 PM

I can vouch for the fact that Asset will fight you right till the end. I have been in court with them for over a year now. All they want to offer is 1K including my atty's fees (I have n atty on this case)....So be prepared!!

Welcome BTW

spinn · 12-28-2006, 12:14 PM

By fighting they are buying the right to violate Federal law. That seems to be their business plan.

How much money does anyone think Enron Acceptance Corporation would collect if they adhered to the law most of the time? I think they would be bankrupt in six months.

The good news is the markets are on to them. The stock is priced at about half the price of a year ago.....going down about $17 per share in a rising market.

So maybe violating the law as a business plan isnt such a great idea after all? Oh....wait....the insiders sold a long time ago. I wonder what they know?

I think Asset will become increasingly vulnerable to any and all lawsuits sooner than we think.

Dallas Student · 12-28-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

If the debts are more than a decade old, it raises the question of why bother with the DV process. Send them the FOAD letter as it far beyond the SOL for both reporting and litigation. CC the underwriter and that should be the end of it.

On ancient debt, the DV process drags things out by interjecting an unnecessary step.

In the letter that is cc'ed to the underwriter, you could drop continued collectioninto the mix, but a single soft pull is not something that you would reasonably be able to show a harm from, which means it is not your pot at the end of a rainbow. It's old, so send the FOAD letter and simply wash your hands of them...

Here is the situation, the last letter that I sent to them after they decided to pull my credit once again, was a FOAD letter. Giving them FULL C&D, and that the debts were way past SOL. They still decided to pull my credit.

I have read so many stories about them and it just pisses (excuse my French) me off that they continue to do stuff like this and get away with it.

I did file a complaint with the MI AG already about the pull.

So is the general concensus that I shouldn't attempt to go after them? Just leave it alone?

centex · 12-28-2006, 02:07 PM

When did you cc the bond underwriter? Use the tools that are actually effective.

As far as litigation, I am of the opinion that you would be expending a lot of effort in a case where you have no real damages. If they were pulling hard, as opposed to soft, then it might be worth pursuing, but for a soft only...I would not put the effort into it even if it were my own case.

Dallas Student · 12-28-2006, 03:59 PM

So basically, you think that I should send Asset another FOAD letter, letting them know that I know that they pulled my CR again, and cc their bond underwriter?

And hopefully this will make them dissappear.

Dallas Student · 01-04-2007, 10:18 PM

UPDATE:

Just checked my EX, and they pulled yet another "soft" inquiry. How many do they have to rack up on me before I should do anything to them legally?

TIA

spinn · 01-04-2007, 10:21 PM

The thing is.........softs dont really "damage" you and courts have not done much to stop pulls if they have an account of yours, even an old one.

Dallas Student · 01-04-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinn

The thing is.........softs dont really "damage" you and courts have not done much to stop pulls if they have an account of yours, even an old one.

Well that makes sense.

I guess if they keep at it I could be the one that sets a precident in Case Law.

jlynn · 01-05-2007, 08:57 AM

Somebody needs to. Its not that softs don't damage your report, IMHO, its an invasion of privacy. So, the question that has never been determined, is once the 7 year reporting is over, can they continue to "invade your privacy" into eternity?

stargazer0725 · 01-05-2007, 10:18 AM

Well, how about introducing any of the following case cites that state that collecting on a time-barred debt is a deceptive practice:

Wright v. Asset Acceptance Corp
Parretta v. Capital Acquisitions
Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Servs

So, their pull, when they say they pulled for "collection purposes" would be an admission that they were collecting on a time-barred debt, ergo a possible violation of the FDCPA and the TFC.

centex · 01-05-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

Well, how about introducing any of the following case cites that state that collecting on a time-barred debt is a deceptive practice:

Wright v. Asset Acceptance Corp
Parretta v. Capital Acquisitions
Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Servs

So, their pull, when they say they pulled for "collection purposes" would be an admission that they were collecting on a time-barred debt, ergo a possible violation of the FDCPA and the TFC.

Without having reviewed the filings in those cases, I will go out on a limb and guess that they are fact-specific cases and it was not the fact that they were time-barred for litigation in and of itself that created the deceptive practice.

spinn · 01-05-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn

Somebody needs to. Its not that softs don't damage your report, IMHO, its an invasion of privacy. So, the question that has never been determined, is once the 7 year reporting is over, can they continue to "invade your privacy" into eternity?

I completely agree Jlynn..........

I remember Butch talking about the disposal rule on AOC. This law states HOW data must be destroyed, but not when making it completely worthless.

The people who stole my identity still have all of my personal information but have apparently forgotten about me as I am just one among millions of files.

I called the FTC attorney who is listed as a contact for discussions about the disposal rule and explained the fact that they still have it and asked her why the rule cant be utilized to get them to destroy my data now....and she just sighed and said "its frustrating, I know".

Of course I cant prove they did it or I would be talking to the FBI et al.

Dallas Student · 01-05-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

Well, how about introducing any of the following case cites that state that collecting on a time-barred debt is a deceptive practice:

Wright v. Asset Acceptance Corp
Parretta v. Capital Acquisitions
Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Servs

So, their pull, when they say they pulled for "collection purposes" would be an admission that they were collecting on a time-barred debt, ergo a possible violation of the FDCPA and the TFC.

Now you really have a point there.

Just out of curiosity, do judges get that deep? I know that we are more than likely a lot more analytical because we are looking for leverage, but that does make sense.

I wish TFC would add not being able to collect on a debt...period...after 7 years.