Premuim Asset Recovery Corp. who are these guy's?

IC Anonymous · 08-24-2007, 06:09 AM

Just found them on my Transunion report Have DV them and Disputed with CRA's used Fed Law but know thinking that I should use TX law since I live in TX. What due you guys think? Can I send a new DV stating TX Law ?

Pale Rider · 08-24-2007, 08:36 AM

I don't think you have to state which law you are using. If they want to collect here, they better know the rules. Rather than send a new DV, just send a follow up...

Dear CA,

You failed to respond to my dispute in the time allowed under TFC 392. Please remove this item from my report. Thanks.

Is the debt SOL? 4 years in Texas since default?

IC Anonymous · 08-24-2007, 08:55 AM

yes it is 4 yrs post sol 8-18-2003 went into collection but i can honestly say i due not remember any bill for that time frame since i was working for a major employer making 6 figures to bad not any more

jlynn · 08-24-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radman159

8-18-2003 went into collection but i can honestly say i due not remember any bill for that time frame

If the bill went into collection in 8/03, its probably at least several months older. Credit card, medical, or can you tell from your credit report?

centex · 08-24-2007, 09:34 AM

PARC handles medical debt. They were acquired some time back by Asset.

Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. to Acquire Premium Asset Recovery Corp.

IC Anonymous · 08-24-2007, 10:43 AM

Update called TU it is medical from when i had back surgery while on the job; a patient fell on me it's the part the hospital didn't cover? They were suppose to but didn't. I was not successful in sueing hospital either and according to my records Asset came after 2 yrs ago for the same account but never responded to my dv. Know what? any and vice ? thanks in advance

centex · 08-24-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

I don't think you have to state which law you are using. If they want to collect here, they better know the rules. Rather than send a new DV, just send a follow up...

Dear CA,

You failed to respond to my dispute in the time allowed under TFC 392. Please remove this item from my report. Thanks.

Is the debt SOL? 4 years in Texas since default?

The purpose of citing the specific provision of TFC is to bring the claim under the DTPA provisions of BCC. You HAVE to provide specific notice in the right to cure letter to sustain the DTPA claims...and it hardly seems worth passing on the trebling just on a presumption that a third party should know Texas law.

Pale Rider · 08-24-2007, 07:01 PM

I only see where it requires 60 days notice before suit can be filed. The OP already disputed and they violated. Why give them another chance? State your claim in detail as required and that they have 60 days to cure or be sued. Sure you could have saved some time if it had been known in advance that the time was required, assuming suit would be filed. I just don't believe in EVER giving them a second chance at DV. You may get what you asked for. The consumer only gets one chance to DV, so why should they get multiple chances to answer. There are also some other requirements before triple damages kick in, but the TFC claims are still valid wether they were stated or not.

centex · 08-24-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

I only see where it requires 60 days notice before suit can be filed. The OP already disputed and they violated. Why give them another chance? State your claim in detail as required and that they have 60 days to cure or be sued. Sure you could have saved some time if it had been known in advance that the time was required, assuming suit would be filed. I just don't believe in EVER giving them a second chance at DV. You may get what you asked for. The consumer only gets one chance to DV, so why should they get multiple chances to answer. There are also some other requirements before triple damages kick in, but the TFC claims are still valid wether they were stated or not.

Because in order to sustain the action under Chapter 17 BCC, you will have to have provided specific notice. And, the only way to ensure that there is not an abatement proceeding on the DTPA claims is to ensure that a letter is sent at some point that specifically cites the TFC requirements.

I am very much a fan of having all of my ducks in a row before I even begin to compose the initial filings...it makes pretrial settlement that much easier.

Further, the obligation to modify the tradeline reporting is something that must specifically be requested by a consumer under TFC- and the standard DV letters on the web don't make the necessary request. By ensuring the language is in a letter, you remove any possibility of them claiming bonafide error and you lock in the willful misconduct that all-but-guarantees the trebling of damages.

I don't go out hunting with a single-shot derringer...I like a multi-round elephant gun.

Pale Rider · 08-24-2007, 10:19 PM

Well, I respectfully disagree. The TFC claims are seperate, and no where do they state that you have to claim them in your dispute. It says dispute, and if they don't follow procedure they have to do to the tradeline whatever you request, such as delete. Therefor, I can say "I didspute. Delete the tradeline." And that would be sufficient for TFC.

I agree that triple damages would be wonderful, but at this point the OP, has already disputed. All they need now is a 60 day notice of ITS and a claim spelled out as defined in the BCC/DTPA. Also, triple damages can only be awarded in certain circumstances. If the violation was committed knowingly, then you get 3 x economic damages. If it was intentional, you get 3 x economic and emotional damages. There might not even be any economic damages to start with.

That's all I'm saying is that in the perfect scenario, the ducks would have been in a row to start with. The OP probably had no knowledge of the triple damages, but at the same time can go back and make up for that with proper notice. I still would not send a 2nd dv, but rather a notice that the dispute has been filed, they violated TFC, and are now in danger of violating DTPA. Actually they did violate DTPA by default, and only a notice is needed to pursue them under that stat.

Looks like you changed your tune lately. Last time I told people to go after them with everything, I was told it was too harsh and a kinder, gentler letter was in order. Now that I advocate making sure they get their violation in, it is not good enough. Whatever. I know what worked for me and cleared my reports. Never had to sue, and never been sued. So take the advice or leave it. But I still would never send a second DV for any reason.

Pale Rider · 08-24-2007, 10:30 PM

(b) If the giving of 60 days' written notice is rendered
impracticable by reason of the necessity of filing suit in order to
prevent the expiration of the statute of limitations or if the
consumer's claim is asserted by way of counterclaim, the notice
provided for in Subsection (a) of this section is not required, but
the tender provided for by Subsection (d), Section 17.506 of this
subchapter may be made within 60 days after service of the suit or counterclaim.

You can give notice after suit has been filed in some cases. Yes, in a perfect scenario, you want to do it sooner, but sometimes it is necessary to give notice after suit has started.

IC Anonymous · 08-25-2007, 09:08 PM

Centex and Palerider you may have seen my same question on another board.// Yes i DV them in the first 30 days of course they never sent me anything in the mail. here goes my original letter to them and my follow up letter please let me know what you think?
Mr Radman
Some ware in TX

SCUM BAG MEDICAL CA
HIDDING IN FL 12345

<Edited by Enigma - letter potentially harmful.>

Can somebody please critic this addition to my original letter? Any ADVICE? CENTEX; PRYAN67; PaleRider thanks for all you help smile.gif

Hedwig · 08-25-2007, 10:00 PM

I'm not sure I'd go with all of this in your letter. I would say that you are reporting incorrect information, I have requested validation and you have not provided adequate proof that the debt is mine and an accounting of how the amount was computed. Tell them if they do not provide adequate proof that you will pursue all legal remedies available to you.

Save the details for discovery if you have to sue. I don't like to show everything (including SOL) until it's needed.

centex · 08-25-2007, 10:22 PM

That first letter needs to be stricken from every website that still has it showing for public view. It is horrible. Further, the language in the C&D can be interpreted at the beginning as a complete cease and desist which would then make the next response a summons from them...

Pale Rider · 08-25-2007, 10:41 PM

A refusal to pay has the same effect as a full cease and desist. As Centex pointed out, the wording in the first letter looks very much like a full C&D, and for their own protection may have treated it as such rather than risk more violations.

You have to be very careful with a C&D as you may leave them no choice but to sue. From the dates you posted, you are very close, but most likely past SOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC Anonymous

Mr. Radman
Some ware in TX
CMMR
ACCt # I will not pay
Dear Scum Bag Medical Collection Agency
Attached is a copy of a certified letter sent to your firm which you signed for and received on 8-27-2007. (Approximant delivery date will track with USPS)

Under Texas law, Texas Finance Code, Chapter 392, your firm WILL BE required to investigate and respond within 30 days of receipt. I am also employing my right under Chapter 17 of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. I am giving 60 days notice as required by statute for violation of Chapter 17 of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. You will become liable under those statues should you fail to act accordingly.

Please provide the documentation in my fist letter to you or remove this tradeline perminetly from my credit report please due so with in the 30 days as required by law.
Sincerely,Radman

Dear CA,

I recently disputed this alleged debt (see attached copy) with your firm. I have not received a response in the time frame allowed as required by TX FC 392. A violation of TX FC 392 is also a violation of the TX DTPA. This letter serves as notice under TX DTPA that suit for violations may be filed in 60 days if this matter is not corrected. Please remove the tradeline from my reports.................(add details of claim as required by DTPA)....etc.

Sincerely