SUBMITTED: Tuesday, September 30, 2003
POSTED: Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Hi Scott,
I'd like some clarification about what you wrote, to better understand CAMCO's position and practices. I hope you will participate in this opportunity to "clear the air".
You wrote: "If a consumer disputes a debt, validation of the debt is provided to the consumer, every time, which is the law."
I'm not familiar with the law in this regard. Can you tell me what the law says about this? Please provide a web link as reference, or paste it verbatim and tell us where the text came from. No paraphrasing please -- let's stick to the facts.
Also, what type of "validation" do you provide? Scott from Akron, OH alleges that someone in your company creates affidavits "attesting to the validity" of the debt. Is that true? Isn't that a conflict of interest? What does the law require for this type of debt validation?
You wrote: "[Some people] falsely believe that after a period of time their debts are 'forgiven' -- they are not. Just because a debt drops off the credit report after 7 years hardly means that it isn't owed...".
The validity of a debt has nothing to do with a person's credit report. I'm well aware of how shoddy credit report data can be maintained (a separate, long story). Credit report data is just that: data -- information about a person's past financial dealings. It has no legal merit.
The Statute of Limitations (SOL), however, is legally relevant to a debt. Just like a criminal cannot be charged for a crime after the SOL for it has expired, so too for debts.
So please clarify what you mean by implying that "the debt is still owed" after the SOL expires.
Isn't it true that the original company dismissed it as an accounting loss long ago (admittedly affecting their business in a negative way)? Then they sell the "debt" to a collection company for a fraction of the value, and in that way recoup some of the loss. That collection company then tries to collect, and if they fail, they resell it again.
After "4 or 5" iterations of this, I suspect that CAMCO pays very little for this data, especially since it is so old. But isn't that just part of CAMCO's business model? Buy old data, harass people, and trick some of them into paying you thousands of dollars that legally they have no obligation to repay.
You wrote: "[The] courts declared that just because the statute of limitations has expired (what is called a time-barred debt) does not mean that other methods cannot be used to collect the debt".
Ok, so legally you can try to collect on these "time-barred debts" (TBDs). Does that mean it's ok for you to threaten people? To deceive them? To damage their credit report before you even make contact with them? Can you clarify exactly what "other methods" CAMCO uses to "collect the debt"?
You wrote: "The real 'rip-off' is when people take money from companies and never pay it back."
I agree with you on this point. Personally I feel people should take responsibility for their actions, including excessive debt. And I write from experience with this, as I am still working off some excessive debt myself (without the "benefit" of avoiding creditors and/or going bankrupt).
However, the laws in this country provide a way out for people, through bankrupcy and the SOL. Debating the ethics of these laws isn't the point here. I'm more interested in how CAMCO is using these laws to it's advantage and sometimes abusing people in the process.
You wrote: "I cannot imagine why anyone rational would think the 'bad guy' here is the business that pursues legitimate debt."
Well, let's try an analogy to see if you can understand our position a little better. Let's say you sell someone a car you own, and that you advertised it "AS IS". The buyer then comes back to you a few weeks later complaining that it stopped running, and demands their money back.
Is their some law preventing them from hounding you about this deal gone bad? Do you feel any obligation to return their money? How about just 25% of their money? How appropriate would it be for this person to reappear in your life 10 or 15 years later and raise a big stink about it again?
Please clarify the phrase "legitimate debt", particularly in light of the previous SOL and TBD discussion.
I'd also be curious about CAMCO's practices. The people writing here have common elements to their stories about being harassed with many, many phone calls, threats to their credit report, demands, coersion, warnings that you will be contacting other people (e.g. neighbors), etc. Are these tactics a normal part of CAMCO's operations? Does CAMCO have any guidelines for treating "debtors" courteously? If so, would you care to share them with us?
I look forward to your responses. Sincerely,