CREDITWRENCH on licensing
The following garbage from the DONKEY is about as stupid as the rest of his brayings.
His thinking (if one can call it that) is ofr the wall and out to lunch. Why? Because if the law of any given state says that a debt collector must obtain a license it is the state who is the injured party in the event of violation and not the consumer. Therefore the consumer has no right of private action. Compliance or non compliance with state licensure laws has nothing whatever to do with the legal status of the debt which is owed to the current holder in due course of the obligation or his assignee. The legal status of the debt deals with whether or not the debt is valid, is collectable and is in compliance with the terms of the contract as well as other considerations but violation of state licensure laws has nothing to do with the validity or legal status of the debt. His statement to the contrary proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is not an attorney as claimed but rather nothing more than a braying jackass. It is misleading because the law says that you can only get $1,000 for the violation and what is that compared to all the time and trouble and expense of trying to collect it? That's why most attorneys are not even interested in taking FDCPA violations cases. Not enough in it for them. So even if the DONKEY were correct it would still amount to nothing more than a fools chase. So much for the useless brayings of the mad DONKEY.
On his web site, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer states:
"Whether or not a collection agency is licensed in any given state or not is not relevant or useful"
Such a statement stems from Bill Bauer's obvious lack of understanding of both the FDCPA and supporting case law. And, is false and misleading.
In fact it's very relevant and useful to know if a collection agency is licensed in a state they are trying to collect in. If a state requires licensing and the agency isn't licensed, they cannot legally pursue collection efforts. If they do so, they have violated ยง 807(2)(a) by misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.
Yep! It is useful alright. So useful that if you catch one of the suckers in violation of the law your only recourse is to go file a lawsuit on them and let the courts settle the matter which may or may not turn out the way you expected but will cost you lots of time, effort and probably attorneys fees as well.
Even if you could find an attorney to take the case you would still have to take time off work to go consult with the attorney, go to court to testify and stand an excellent chance of losing the case. 50-50 chance at the very best. Either you win or you lose. Few people want to take those kinds of chances, pay for the outcome if not in your favor, pay for the filing fees, pay for the lawyer and lose time off work.
As uaual, the mad brayings of the jackass are not only false but very misleading as well.
creditwrench-thetruth
His thinking (if one can call it that) is ofr the wall and out to lunch. Why? Because if the law of any given state says that a debt collector must obtain a license it is the state who is the injured party in the event of violation and not the consumer. Therefore the consumer has no right of private action. Compliance or non compliance with state licensure laws has nothing whatever to do with the legal status of the debt which is owed to the current holder in due course of the obligation or his assignee. The legal status of the debt deals with whether or not the debt is valid, is collectable and is in compliance with the terms of the contract as well as other considerations but violation of state licensure laws has nothing to do with the validity or legal status of the debt. His statement to the contrary proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is not an attorney as claimed but rather nothing more than a braying jackass. It is misleading because the law says that you can only get $1,000 for the violation and what is that compared to all the time and trouble and expense of trying to collect it? That's why most attorneys are not even interested in taking FDCPA violations cases. Not enough in it for them. So even if the DONKEY were correct it would still amount to nothing more than a fools chase. So much for the useless brayings of the mad DONKEY.
On his web site, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer states:
"Whether or not a collection agency is licensed in any given state or not is not relevant or useful"
Such a statement stems from Bill Bauer's obvious lack of understanding of both the FDCPA and supporting case law. And, is false and misleading.
In fact it's very relevant and useful to know if a collection agency is licensed in a state they are trying to collect in. If a state requires licensing and the agency isn't licensed, they cannot legally pursue collection efforts. If they do so, they have violated ยง 807(2)(a) by misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.
Yep! It is useful alright. So useful that if you catch one of the suckers in violation of the law your only recourse is to go file a lawsuit on them and let the courts settle the matter which may or may not turn out the way you expected but will cost you lots of time, effort and probably attorneys fees as well.
Even if you could find an attorney to take the case you would still have to take time off work to go consult with the attorney, go to court to testify and stand an excellent chance of losing the case. 50-50 chance at the very best. Either you win or you lose. Few people want to take those kinds of chances, pay for the outcome if not in your favor, pay for the filing fees, pay for the lawyer and lose time off work.
As uaual, the mad brayings of the jackass are not only false but very misleading as well.
creditwrench-thetruth
posted by Creditwrench @ 10:12 AM
![](http://www.ftc.gov/images/hpbuttons/hot_credit_reports.gif")
<< Home