Re: JR

Posted by JR (64.12.96.205) on October 02, 2002 at 22:52:14:

In Reply to: Re: JR posted by Why Chat on October 02, 2002 at 15:44:10:

Yes, you are right about EFTs as in regular schedules payments, etc. However, what they did was a preauthorized draft. It is, legally, exactly the same as writing a check. Once you write a check to someone, you cannot just "change your mind" without some legal foundation to do so.

You are also right about the accuser having the burden of proof. In this case the accuser IS THE CONSUMER. They are the ones who are claiming a fraud has taken place and they are the ones who have to prove it.

You have very good advice for the vast majority of people who have questions. You also have a very good web site. I have used it myself. However, that doesn't mean that you are perfect. In this instance they have written a bad check and if the collector chooses to pursue this all he has to do is take it to court and show the dishonered check/draft (same thing). Then, the burden will be on the consumer to give a legal explanation for stopping payment.

Yes, the consumer is the victim and the collection agency is the accuser where the debt is concerned. Once the consumer authorized the draft from their checking account and stopped payment, the consumer became the one making the accusation that there was some illegal act on the part of the collection agency.

Finally, what in the world would ever make you think that I am a collection agency???? Furthermore, I have NEVER asked anyone on this board to email ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION. Please get your facts straight before hurling unfounded and offensive accusations.

While I'm taking all this time, I may as well tell you something else that you are mistaken about but, I have ignored it because I had no interest in engaging a dispute. The time limit of 7 1/2 years applies to ALL debts, regardless of when they originated UNLESS the last time they were reported was prior to the change in the law. Any REPORT TO THE CREDIT BUREAUS after the change in law must comply with the new law, regardless of when the delinquency originated. The only way the change in the law does not apply is if there has been no report of the delinquency since the revision of the law. It is the act of reporting that brings the delinquency under the revised law.

You probably won't believe me but, instead of just arguing about it, why don't you ask a consumer attorney. If we could make a bet on this, I'd bet the farm I'm right because I know I'm right.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup