Sunday, February 06, 2005

CREDITWRENCH, the FDCPA, and the law Part VI

Let me preface the following by stating the facts in question. Because, as we all know, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer has a propensity to go back and edit stated facts to suit his own position, after he discovers he's wrong.

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer states on the CREDITWRENCH web site:



Whether or not a collection agency is licensed in any given state or not is not relevant or useful"



He has further stated in recent days:

a consumer has no standing to sue a collection agency that violates state licensing law.



As with all of his viewpoints, he fails to substantiate his position with either statute or case law. However, you can read my my substantiated position that discredits both his credit repair's website advertisement, and his recent statements on this blog. And, I will re-substantiate them in this post.

If a state requires licensing and the agency isn't licensed, they cannot legally pursue collection efforts.

There are at least 2 violations under ยง 807 of the FDCPA when an unlicensed collection agency pursues collection of a contract in a state that requires a license to do so:

  1. The false representation of its legal status
  2. The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken

There is abundant case law* that supports that FDCPA violations occur when an unlicensed collection agency pursues a debt in states which require they be licensed before attempting to do so.

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer's attempts to hide these facts is yet another example of his self-serving, and uninformed cause, to make a few bucks at the expense of an already cash strapped and unwary consumer. His credit repair scam web site continues to publish this false and misleading information.

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer is now attempting to embelish my statement to mean that I believe a contract is void when an unlicensed collection agency attempts to collect. That has never been my position, and there is nowhere that I have stated such a position.

Given the above scenario, assuming the contract is not void due to illegal content, the collection agency has a number of options to enforce it and avoid FDCPA violations:

  1. They can obtain the license required by the state
  2. They can sell the obligation
So while a licensing violation itself is a regulatory matter, collection activity absent a license where required, is an FDCPA violation.

CREDITWRENCH Bill Bauer's claim that an unlicensed collection agency, pursuing a collection in a jurisdiction that requires licensing, is never a violation of the FDCPA is false and misleading.

CREDITWRENCH Bill Bauer's claim that a consumer cannot sue for a license violation is false and misleading.


*Kuhn v. Account ControlTechnology, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 1443, 1451-52 (D.Nev. 1994); Sibley v. Firstcollect, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 469 (M.D.La. 1995); Russey v. Rankin, 911 F. Supp. 1449 (D.N.M. 1995); United States v. National Financial Services, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 228, 235-36, aff'd, 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996); Gaetano v. Payco of Wisconsin, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 1404, 1413-14 (D.Conn. 1990).

// posted by Creditwrench-thetruth @ 3:10 PM




<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?