Enormisly false and misleading statements

The antics of Enormis might very well lead one to the conclusion that he might be a refugee from a long term intensive care facility.

Creditwrench Senior Member Joined: October 16 2004 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 213

Posted: January 15 2005 at 9:32pm | IP Logged Interesting. So would the collection agency come to the rescue of their employee? I think that question can be answered by considering whether or not the collection agency would come to the rescue of an employee who drove one of their vehicles while drunk, or for driving the wrong way on a one way street, for speeding or for the violation of any other law. So if they probably would not attempt to go to the rescue of an employee charged with any of the above infractions then why would they if the employee were sued for a violation of FDCPA, FCRA or any other law. In both types of situations they might help out if the employee could prove beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that he did not commit the infractions but that probably would not be all that easy for the employee to prove. I would guess that they might very well be more inclined to fire him and hope to escape any liability on their part in the event that the plaintiff later decided to sue the agency on the grounds that they were also liable for the actions of their employee. But if they had fired the employee then they would have taken reasonable steps to insure that the infraction was not likely to be repeated and most likely escape any culpability with that argument. However, the statement that the agency cannot come to the aid of their employee is patently false and misleading.

E. Normis
Expert Member



Joined: October 12 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 462

Posted: January 15 2005 at 11:09am | IP Logged

It's not the norm. Most consumers threaten legal action with the intent of getting a settlement check long before going to court. If you're lucky, that's the case here.

The agency can't represent you if you are personally named as a defendant. However, depending on their corporate policy, they can choose to provide you with legal council and/or pay any settlement, fines or damage awards. Only they can answer that question for you. And, depending on any negligence on the part of the agency, you may have recourse against them, and also be able to drag them into it.

One reason they may only be going after you is their fear of going against the agencies legal resources, losing, and having to foot the agencies legal bills for filing a frivilous suit; an unlikely scenario if they have any evidence at all.

If they're not in it for the money, only revenge, suing you personally is a rather smart choice. Afterall, they know you would have to hire an attorney in California where they would sue you, or count on you doing nothing, in which case they will get a default judgment. Perfected revenge.

The extent of damages that the plantiff can prove will determine how costly the lawsuit will be. But, even if they can't prove damages, if they can prove a violation occurred, you'll end up footing their legal expenses as well as your own.

There's no such thing as a "minor infringement". Either you violated the law or you didn't. What did this "minor infringement" consist of?

Edited by E. Normis on January 15 2005 at 11:19am