Superior Asset Management & BoA

[Dawn]

I have a friend whose daughter was contacted earlier today by Superior Asset Management in regard to a delinquent BoA credit card account.  The daughter has been making payments through Consumer Credit Counseling Service for multiple accounts, but apparently what was being sent to BoA was too little, too late.  From what the mother can determine, BoA charged it off and the debt went to another CA prior to landing with Superior Asset Management. 

The daughter (on a three way phone call) gave the CA permission to speak to the mother.  Neither of them knows what the original amount of the debt was, but they were pressured into making a committment to "close this out" TODAY, or it would be elevated to the next level and would involve an additional $500 fee.  The mother agreed to provide her routing and checking account number for an amount that was reduced by $284 from the original amount of $1159.  She asked that the charge not be run against her account until November 28 and the CA agreed.

The daughter does have a call into CCCS to see what they know about BoA not accepting the payment and her account ending up in the hands of Superior Asset Management.  There are so many things I see wrong with this picture ... and I am trying to help them determine all the factors at play here and how to make sure they aren't being taken advantage of. 

The daughter was not trying to get out of paying her debt (or she wouldn't be working with CCCS) and is overwhelmed right now, considering that she was making payments through CCCS.

From everything I have read here, I would think that considering that she thought she was following approved payment arrangements, that instead of agreeing to settle and providing bank account access, they should have been able to buy some time without the threats of increased fees if they didn't take care of it TODAY.

Is this a typical scenario once the CAs get in touch with someone?  Can they back up at this point and insist on verification of the amount that is owed before the CA touches the mother's checking account?

I have suggested that they obtain her credit reports from all three bureaus ... but that seems to be all that they might be able to do this weekend.

[Anonymous]

---

denbar2003 wrote:

I have a friend whose daughter was contacted earlier today by Superior Asset Management in regard to a delinquent BoA credit card account.  The daughter has been making payments through Consumer Credit Counseling Service for multiple accounts, but apparently what was being sent to BoA was too little, too late.  From what the mother can determine, BoA charged it off and the debt went to another CA prior to landing with Superior Asset Management. 

The daughter (on a three way phone call) gave the CA permission to speak to the mother.  Neither of them knows what the original amount of the debt was, but they were pressured into making a committment to "close this out" TODAY, or it would be elevated to the next level and would involve an additional $500 fee.  The mother agreed to provide her routing and checking account number for an amount that was reduced by $284 from the original amount of $1159.  She asked that the charge not be run against her account until November 28 and the CA agreed.

The daughter does have a call into CCCS to see what they know about BoA not accepting the payment and her account ending up in the hands of Superior Asset Management.  There are so many things I see wrong with this picture ... and I am trying to help them determine all the factors at play here and how to make sure they aren't being taken advantage of. 

The daughter was not trying to get out of paying her debt (or she wouldn't be working with CCCS) and is overwhelmed right now, considering that she was making payments through CCCS.

From everything I have read here, I would think that considering that she thought she was following approved payment arrangements, that instead of agreeing to settle and providing bank account access, they should have been able to buy some time without the threats of increased fees if they didn't take care of it TODAY.

Is this a typical scenario once the CAs get in touch with someone?  Can they back up at this point and insist on verification of the amount that is owed before the CA touches the mother's checking account?

I have suggested that they obtain her credit reports from all three bureaus ... but that seems to be all that they might be able to do this weekend.

---

First mistake was talking to any CA.......2nd was giving any banking info out to them or anyone collecting on an account.

They need to check with their state to see if the CA is licensed in their state (if needed)

They also should have DVd the CA to find out if they owned the account.

Most states and the fed gov. have laws covering these CCCS agencies......complain to the FTC...the AG in their own state & in the state where the agency is.  If they did something wrong they MIGHT correct it.

Everyone's credit is personal & needs to be handled as such. What is good for one is not always the same for others. These agencies lump everyone together.

Message Edited by HappyDays on 11-16-2007 11:52 PM

[Dawn]

---

HappyDays wrote:

First mistake was talking to any CA.......2nd was giving any banking info out to them or anyone collecting on an account.

They need to check with their state to see if the CA is licensed in their state (if needed)

They also should have DVd the CA to find out if they owned the account.

Most states and the fed gov. have laws covering these CCCS agencies......complain to the FTC...the AG in their own state & in the state where the agency is.  If they did something wrong they MIGHT correct it.

Everyone's credit is personal & needs to be handled as such. What is good for one is not always the same for others. These agencies lump everyone together.

Message Edited by HappyDays on 11-16-2007 11:52 PM

---

Thank you for your feedback.  I realize after weeks of reading these forums that there was more they could have done to protect themselves even though the daughter is acknowledging the debt.  Unfortunately, those who are faced with calls from collectors (and friends and family that are there to help pick up the pieces) don't always know all these things going into the call.

They are more than willing to pay what is due ... they just don't really know, at this point, what that is.  They were, in my mind, pressured into making a committment before they could confirm all the facts.

I find myself wondering what the man was talking about when he told them that if they didn't settle this matter right then, that there would be an additional $500 fee added to the existing charges when they took the matter to the "next level." 

He justified this by making a reference to a federal law that made this allowable.  The extra $500 "threat" (allowable by federal law) was what pushed the mother into committing to make the payment on behalf of the daughter without taking the time to confirm the amount owed.

Does anyone know what he might have been talking about ... or was this something that falls under False or Misleading Representations of the FDCPA?

§ 807.  False or misleading representations  [15 USC 1692e]

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

§ 808.  Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

[Dawn]

---

denbar2003 wrote:

I find myself wondering what the man was talking about when he told them that if they didn't settle this matter right then, that there would be an additional $500 fee added to the existing charges when they took the matter to the "next level." 

He justified this by making a reference to a federal law that made this allowable.  The extra $500 "threat" (allowable by federal law) was what pushed the mother into committing to make the payment on behalf of the daughter without taking the time to confirm the amount owed.

Does anyone know what he might have been talking about ... or was this something that falls under False or Misleading Representations of the FDCPA?

---

I still don't have all the details, but the mother told me this morning that she had pulled her daughter's credit reports, and the BoA account shows to be past due the approximate amount that was the reduction the CA gave her last week.  This makes it sound like he already reported the agreed upon amount "paid" (even though the funds haven't been taken out of the checking account yet) and it has been updated on the BoA account. 

If that is the case, does that mean that BoA still owns the account and the collector is acting on their behalf?  If the CA owned the account, their negotiations wouldn't appear on the original BoA account records, would it?

And ... is it possible that the extra $500 charge he mentioned earlier (if they didn't settle right then) was implying that they would sue the daughter, and the $500 were extra charges that would be incurred because of that?