Asset Acceptance, LLC Non-Stop Calling Warren, Michigan

From Yahoo News:

The Federal Trade Commission signaled on Monday that it would continue to crack down on debt collectors who harass consumers for money they may not even be legally obligated to pay.  In the second-largest penalty ever levied on a debt collector, the F.T.C. said that Asset Acceptance, one of the nations largest debt collection companies, had agreed to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty to settle charges that the company deceived consumers when trying to collect old debts. The settlement is part of a broader effort to patrol the industry, agency officials said. The commission said it had pursued eight cases related to debt collection companies over the last two years. Our attention to debt collection has increased over the past couple of years because the complaints have been on the rise, said J. Reilly Dolan, assistant director for the F.T.C.s division of financial practices. Consumer complaints about debt collection companies consistently rank as the second-highest category among all complaints at the agency, behind identity theft. But in 2010, complaints jumped 17 percent to 140,036, which represented 11 percent of all complaints in the commissions database, up from 119,540, or about 9 percent of complaints, in 2009. Asset Acceptance, based in Warren, Mich., was charged with a variety of complaints, including failing to tell consumers that they could no longer be sued for failing to pay some debts because the debts were too old. The companys collectors also failed to inform consumers that paying even a small portion of the amount owed would revive the debt in other words, making a payment would extend the amount of time the collector could legally sue.  Debt collectors have only a certain number of years to sue consumers. The statute of limitations varies by state, but typically ranges from two to 15 years, Mr. Dolan said, beginning when a consumer fails to make a payment. But borrowers often do not realize that making a payment on the old debt may restart the clock. Among other things, the complaint also contended that the company which buys unpaid debts for pennies on the dollar from credit card companies, health clubs and telecommunications and utility providers and tries to collect them reported inaccurate information about the consumers to the credit reporting agencies. It also said that Asset Acceptance failed to conduct a reasonable investigation when it was notified by one of the credit agencies that a debt was being disputed. Moreover, the complaint says that the company used illegal collection practices and that it continued to try to collect debts that consumers disputed even though the company failed to verify that the debt was valid. The proposed settlement with Asset Acceptance requires the company to tell consumers whose debt may be too old to be collected that it will not sue. It also requires the company to investigate disputed debts and to ensure it has a reasonable basis for its claims before going after the consumer. It is also barred from placing debt on credit reports without notifying the consumer. The penalty is certainly a slap on the wrist and probably a little bit more, but it really depends on what the F.T.C. does to enforce this in the coming months and years, said Robert Hobbs, deputy director at the National Consumer Law Center and author of Fair Debt Collection (National Consumer Law Center, 1987). But it is a great step forward. It is not self-enforcing, and it has a mechanism for the F.T.C. to follow up. Still, while the settlement requires the company to take more responsibility for checking the statute of limitations before it contacts consumers, he said most states did not require debt collectors to do that. That means it is up to consumers to know the rules on the statute of limitations, which, he said, can be an enormously complex legal question. In a statement, Asset Acceptance said that the settlement ended an F.T.C. investigation that began nearly six years ago, and that the company did not admit to any of the allegations. We are pleased to have this matter behind us, and to have clarity on the F.T.C.s policies and expectations of the debt collection industry, said Rion Needs, president and chief executive of Asset Acceptance.  In March, another leading debt collection company, West Asset Management, agreed to pay $2.8 million, the largest civil penalty ever levied by the F.T.C., to settle charges that its collection techniques violated the law. The commission charged that West Assets collectors often called consumers multiple times a day, sometimes using rude and abusive language, about accounts that were not theirs. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the F.T.C. now share enforcement authority for debt collection companies, though the new bureau has a power that the F.T.C. did not: it can write new rules for debt collectors. But F.T.C. officials said that debt collection enforcement would remain a top priority.

Man,  talk about shooting yourself in the foot big time.    Good luck,  you will need it.

Never EVER try to deal with a third party debt collector and Asset Acceptance is on of the WORST!  You just set yourself up to re-age an old debt therefore you are screwing yourself. Both Roberts are right.  Good luck you just screwed your credit.

The letter by the author also asks them to knowingly VIOLATE the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  At  this point, the best that can be hoped for is that the credit line is reported as "paid as agreed" after the settlement is reached.  They CANNOT delete a credit line that reflects correct information.  To agree to pay, even a portion of the amount demanded, is not going to get the credit line deleted.

They way to demand the credit line be deleted is to DENY the debt and force them to PROVE that it is valid.  If they cannot validate the date, then it MUST be removed.  Offering to reach a "compromise" may or may not be interpreted as you validating the debt as being yours depending on your State laws.

I don't know where you got the idea for this letter-it's completely WRONG.  If someone gave you this outline, do thank them for SCREWING THE POOCH.

FYI, I've been helping folks with credit issues for almost 30 years and I'm a certified credit counselor who is accepted by the bankruptcy courts.

I don't exactly know what you are claiming what the RipOff is.  But please don't say that you actually sent this letter.  Because this is basically what you told them.

"You may not be able to legally collect on the debt any longer, and I may not even owe as much as you say.  But just because I am being nice I will offer you $1,500.  If you don't accept this then and only then will I actually make you prove that I owe it."

Let me guess that you weren't exactly the Valedictorian of your High School were you.

Since you referenced the FDCPA, I am sure you are aware that if they can't validate the debt that they are by law required to remove the trade line anyways.  So why didn't you request validation first?  It can't be a time situation, because you wanted to make payments with them through January 2011, and by law they would have had to validate it well before that point if you sent the request now.

You just better hope you haven't totally screwed yourself.  There are situations when a letter like this may be enough to reset the Statute of Limitations.  If that happens they can actually come after you for not only the full amount, but legal and court costs as well if they decide to file suit.