In Re First Select - California Attorney/Why Chat

Posted by Debtor (205.188.192.154) on March 31, 2002 at 22:31:43:

I originally posted the question re Providian/First Select. The reason I posted the question to begin with was because I sent First Select a cease & Desist letter via certified mail. I put them on notice that I would record their calls to document any violations of the FDCPA. They have continued to call me about 2-3 times a day. This is what prompted the question. I figured that because they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Providian, maybe they are considered the original creditor.

However, I have them on tape saying "Providian" has turned your account over to "us", and we are not going to stop calling you until you pay us".

So I called Providian to inquire about First Select. I recorded the phone call based on their own-recorded notice that "my" call may be recorded. Providian actually said, your account has been turned over to an "outside" agency. "We" no longer service the account". These are quotes.

So, both Providian and First Select specifically held First Select out as being third party debt collectors. Therefore, it would appear that the act would apply because of their representations. Of course, I continue to smile, record, and document all of the continued efforts to collect on the debt.

As an aside, Im inclined to side with the analysis of California Attorney. I think the "language" of the statute, section (f) in particular, would include First Select.

Certainly, First Selects "defense" would be that of Why Chat's position. However, reasonable minds can certainly differ as to whether or not the act applies. Lets all just get along.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup