Re: All Read ! OC Held Liable in FDCPA Class Action !
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by Bear (12.15.122.236) on October 12, 2002 at 07:26:59:
In Reply to: All Read ! OC Held Liable in FDCPA Class Action ! posted by LadynRed on October 11, 2002 at 14:54:04:
The decision is good news for the consumer's side of the battle. There has long been an exception to the general rule that the OC is not liable under FDCPA -- when the OC disguises itself. That's what happened here. The case was decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Here's a link to the opinion for those who'd like to read it: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=00-2780.PDF It may be a bit hard for non-lawyers to understand, but it makes great reading if you're familiar with FDCPA. Even greater justice is what happened to the OC's lawyer. The lawyer sent out over 400,000 letters to consumers demanding payment. He was paid less than $3 a letter (a practice called "flat rating"), so the Court decided he was really just letting the OC use his name, and he wasn't reviewing any of the cases. Under FDCPA, a lawyer has to at least briefly review the consumer's case before sending out a dunning letter. I've started a class action suit for a North Dakota client against a New Jersey CA, apparently run by a lawyer, who appears to have come up with his own variation of what the lawyer did for Household. What makes the New Jersey CA different is that they are sending out dunning letters for old NSF checks long after the criminal SOL has lapsed, but are saying the consumer's "case is being reviewed to determine if criminal prosecution will be recommended." That would be impossible because the criminal SOL had expired. The CA, National Check Control, has been mentioned before on this forum. (I found the forum while doing research on National Check Control in preparation of the case.)
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
