2x collections from 2x agencies

[Anonymous]

Just months after becoming a t-mobile customer our relationship went into decline. Earlier this year I made formal requests to pay a final bill without ETF (early termination fee) due to failing service, non-existent service, and failing equipment. They dismissed this request and shortly thereafter I received a collections letter from Convergent Outsourcing for the amount of $200. I responded promptly with a request for validation but never received a response, expiring the 30 day deadline. Late last month (November) I received a new letter, again representing t-mobile, this time from Diversified Consultants, now for the amount of $430.

I understand the discrepancy of the amount is due to ETF not being applied in first collection however the legality of this process seems suspect. Can anyone tell me if there's some violation here, in terms of switching collections, trying multiple times to collect without responding to validation requests?

Lastly, although I've been through this before (previously, with a different creditor), went to court and won, can someone clarify for me at what point will they (or can they) notify or report to one or more CRA?


Thank you,
--ezekieldas

[llecs]

Under the DV process via the FDCPA, a CA has an unlimited amout of time to validate, not 30 days. In the case of the CA, they either couldn't validate or they gave up and passed it back to the OC who used another CA to collect or the first CA sold it to another directly. It's like playing whack-a-mole. There's no violation. I've had multiple CAs chase after the same debt and it's all legal.

If you beat them in court and the judge ruled in your favor, then if they ever reported or collected, just forward court docs saying you've won and they'll go away.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the quick response. I should have been more clear in my initial post that my court experience was many years ago, with a different creditor (I made a brief edit reflecting this). I can only hope this one turns out the same.

Is this playing tag with multiple CAs have negative impact on credibility? Would a judge, more sympathetic to consumer rights, find this unethical?

[RobertEG]

As stated, when a new debt collector has obtained legitimate collection authority, they have the right to report that authority to the CRAs.

That authority is not limited by the fact of prior reporting of another.  You have ongoing collection, albiet under different parties.

Not much different that one party retaining continuous collection authority.

It is not a violation of either the FCRA or FDCPA, and being in the business of collecting on debts, I dont see an unethical issue in conducting legitimate collection activities.

[llecs]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Is this playing tag with multiple CAs have negative impact on credibility? Would a judge, more sympathetic to consumer rights, find this unethical?

---

Credibility on part of the CA? They don't care about credibility otherwise they wouldn't be in the business of browbeating, harassing, threatening, or collecting from debtors.

A judge wouldn't care either. If the CA sues a debtor in court, the judge wouldn't care how many CAs came before the one that's suing. He/she will only care about whether or not the debt is valid and whether or not the debtor owes the debt.