Vanderbilt Mortgage And Finance How To Stop The Harrassment of VMF! YOU WANT TO READ THIS! Maryville Tennessee

""You see, the majority of Vanderbilt's customers are not original Vanderbilt customers. For example, Oakwood Acceptance Corp. went out of business, and Vanderbilt bought up most, if not all, of those accounts. Many people who found themselves in a debt collector scenario, such as those who have already been repossessed, are now dealing with Vanderbilt on a THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR BASIS. Yes, folks, that means that the FDCPA is certainly alive and well in many cases involving Vanderbilt.""

INCORRECT. When any business BUYS a debt, they are then considered the CREDITOR IAW the FDCPA (Section 803-go read it) and the restrictions applied for debt collectors DO NOT apply-they are creditors. It does NOT matter that they are NOT the ORIGINAL CREDITOR. This is why the FDCPA requires debt collectors to identity the CREDITOR and the ORIGINAL CREDITOR when the consumer debtor requests such information. IF Vanderbuilt bought the mortgage (rather than servicing the mortgage) the are the CREDITOR (not DEBT COLLECTOR.)

The FTC held a consumer credit conference (collection practices of both creditors and debt collectors) in 2007 and the gist of the conference is available at the FTC website www.ftc.gov One main issue about the FDCPA is that it DOESN'T apply to CREDITORS, including those 2nd and subsequent creditors who have purchased the debt portfolio.

You are mistaken.

Read the FDCPA for yourself. Also read the conference reports on the FTC website.

""You see, the majority of Vanderbilt's customers are not original Vanderbilt customers. For example, Oakwood Acceptance Corp. went out of business, and Vanderbilt bought up most, if not all, of those accounts. Many people who found themselves in a debt collector scenario, such as those who have already been repossessed, are now dealing with Vanderbilt on a THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR BASIS. Yes, folks, that means that the FDCPA is certainly alive and well in many cases involving Vanderbilt.""

INCORRECT. When any business BUYS a debt, they are then considered the CREDITOR IAW the FDCPA (Section 803-go read it) and the restrictions applied for debt collectors DO NOT apply-they are creditors. It does NOT matter that they are NOT the ORIGINAL CREDITOR. This is why the FDCPA requires debt collectors to identity the CREDITOR and the ORIGINAL CREDITOR when the consumer debtor requests such information. IF Vanderbuilt bought the mortgage (rather than servicing the mortgage) the are the CREDITOR (not DEBT COLLECTOR.)

The FTC held a consumer credit conference (collection practices of both creditors and debt collectors) in 2007 and the gist of the conference is available at the FTC website www.ftc.gov One main issue about the FDCPA is that it DOESN'T apply to CREDITORS, including those 2nd and subsequent creditors who have purchased the debt portfolio.

You are mistaken.

Read the FDCPA for yourself. Also read the conference reports on the FTC website.

""You see, the majority of Vanderbilt's customers are not original Vanderbilt customers. For example, Oakwood Acceptance Corp. went out of business, and Vanderbilt bought up most, if not all, of those accounts. Many people who found themselves in a debt collector scenario, such as those who have already been repossessed, are now dealing with Vanderbilt on a THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR BASIS. Yes, folks, that means that the FDCPA is certainly alive and well in many cases involving Vanderbilt.""

INCORRECT. When any business BUYS a debt, they are then considered the CREDITOR IAW the FDCPA (Section 803-go read it) and the restrictions applied for debt collectors DO NOT apply-they are creditors. It does NOT matter that they are NOT the ORIGINAL CREDITOR. This is why the FDCPA requires debt collectors to identity the CREDITOR and the ORIGINAL CREDITOR when the consumer debtor requests such information. IF Vanderbuilt bought the mortgage (rather than servicing the mortgage) the are the CREDITOR (not DEBT COLLECTOR.)

The FTC held a consumer credit conference (collection practices of both creditors and debt collectors) in 2007 and the gist of the conference is available at the FTC website www.ftc.gov One main issue about the FDCPA is that it DOESN'T apply to CREDITORS, including those 2nd and subsequent creditors who have purchased the debt portfolio.

You are mistaken.

Read the FDCPA for yourself. Also read the conference reports on the FTC website.

""You see, the majority of Vanderbilt's customers are not original Vanderbilt customers. For example, Oakwood Acceptance Corp. went out of business, and Vanderbilt bought up most, if not all, of those accounts. Many people who found themselves in a debt collector scenario, such as those who have already been repossessed, are now dealing with Vanderbilt on a THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR BASIS. Yes, folks, that means that the FDCPA is certainly alive and well in many cases involving Vanderbilt.""

INCORRECT. When any business BUYS a debt, they are then considered the CREDITOR IAW the FDCPA (Section 803-go read it) and the restrictions applied for debt collectors DO NOT apply-they are creditors. It does NOT matter that they are NOT the ORIGINAL CREDITOR. This is why the FDCPA requires debt collectors to identity the CREDITOR and the ORIGINAL CREDITOR when the consumer debtor requests such information. IF Vanderbuilt bought the mortgage (rather than servicing the mortgage) the are the CREDITOR (not DEBT COLLECTOR.)

The FTC held a consumer credit conference (collection practices of both creditors and debt collectors) in 2007 and the gist of the conference is available at the FTC website www.ftc.gov One main issue about the FDCPA is that it DOESN'T apply to CREDITORS, including those 2nd and subsequent creditors who have purchased the debt portfolio.

You are mistaken.

Read the FDCPA for yourself. Also read the conference reports on the FTC website.

OK, folks, let's get on with the show...

First off, to everyone here that wants to say that the FDCPA does not apply to Vanderbilt, you are wrong more than half the time. You see, the majority of Vanderbilt's customers are not original Vanderbilt customers. For example, Oakwood Acceptance Corp. went out of business, and Vanderbilt bought up most, if not all, of those accounts. Many people who found themselves in a debt collector scenario, such as those who have already been repossessed, are now dealing with Vanderbilt on a THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR BASIS. Yes, folks, that means that the FDCPA is certainly alive and well in many cases involving Vanderbilt.

Now, if you signed a loan contract with Vanderbilt, then the FDCPA doesnt apply to you, as they are the creditor, and not a third party collector. But--if you did not, then this federal law certainly applies.

OK, with that out of the way, let's clear up some other details. About phone calls--it is a fact that the FDCPA prohibits a collector from calling a consumer if that consumer has notified the collector not to call. This means ANY phone number. The FDCPA specifically states that a collector may only call between the hours of 8 am and 9 pm in your time zone, unless you have personally given them permission to call outside those hours. This law prohibits them from calling you at work, if you have told them that you cannot accept calls there or if they have sufficient reason to believe that you cannot. Now, if they are your creditor, then you can still inform them that they are not to call you. And while the FDCPA doesnt apply, many states have consumer protection laws in place for this kind of thing.

Let's talk about credit reporting, since I am seeing a whole boatload of Vandy's mistakes in reporting on credit reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act applies to Vandy and every other "furnisher of information" that reports to the credit bureaus. In a nutshell, the FCRA requires Vanderbilt to take reasonable measures to ensure accuracy in what they report about you. If an error is found, Vanderbuilt must investigate it and clear it up. If they do not, they will be in violation of the FCRA, and the penalty that you can sue them for is up to $1000 per violation. Now, since there are three credit bureaus nationwide, you can see how this can add up in a hurry if they report the same mistakes to all three--each individual mistake means up to another $1000 in your pocket. Me personally, I have never done business with these people at all in any way, and had never heard of them until they showed up on my credit report. They claim that I have had a mortgage with them since 2003 and that I voluntarily surrendered(in other words, abandoned) the home in 2006. Here's the funny part--I never resided in the state that this took place in. I have notified the credit bureaus that they reported it to and they have verified both reports numerous times. So, they now claim I owe them $30,000 for a house I never bought, in a state I never lived in, that I supposedly abandoned while me and my family were living in this house that I am sitting in right now, trying to rebuild from hurricane katrina.

I have sent them a notice in the mail, disputing the account and requesting validation of the debt. In accordance with the FDCPA, they are required by law to send you a notice of yoru right to dispute the debt within 5 days of initial communication. Well, the moment they place an entry on your credit report, folks, THAT is communication. And 5 days from them came and went months ago....with nothing from them. So, I sent out a letter asking for validation. They never responded. Since then, they have continued to both report and to verify when I dispute to the credit bureaus....This is going to quickly add up to a pretty decent lawsuit against them. And its really easy to prove that they know I have disputed the debt--they even state so on one of my credit reports!! Oh, thats something else about the FCRA--if you inform them that you dispute a debt, then they MUST state that the debt is disputed on your credit report. Failure to do so means another $1000 in my pocket, and they failed to do so on one of my reports....

On top of all that, the FCRA requires them to report accurate info and there are certain pieces of info that they must report. The reports that I have show several pieces of info missing, and in a few ways one report contradicts the other. So, they are either knowingly or by negligence reporting two different sets of information at the same time, about the same debt, on my reports. Vanderbilt, I hope youre reading this--it's gonna get pricey for you!

I will leave you with this--your best bet if you have any questions at all is to speak with a consumer attorney. You can find many of them on www.naca.net and some of them give free initial consultations. Some of them will even take a case on contingency basis--meaning that you dont have to pay a penny out of your pocket, win or lose! Finally, for those of you here that work for this fabulous company, I express my deepest sympathies, and ask that next time you chime in on someone's complaint that you tell the WHOLE story and not just a portion of it. You can start by admitting that Vanderbilt is sometimes a creditor, and sometimes a debt buyer, and we can go from there.

I'm confident that I know more about this Act and the protections it provides to cosumer debtors that you do.

""Not sure why you would argue something you have no idea about..... I was over a collection team for 10 years and KNOW exactly what they expect!""

You may very well know about the inside workings of VMF and I won't doubt that, but I would suggest you limit your advice to just that. At least until you read the FDCPA and the FCRA and comprehend the protections and entitlements these ACTS provide to consumers.

I have been voluntarily helping folks with credit issues for over 25 years. I had my own credit woes back in 1978 and was taught the tricks of the trade by a credit counselor and I've been helping folks ever since. Over the years I have probably drafted over 1000 letters for folks that achieved the desired result. On several occassions, I have been to court as a witness for the debtor here and in Germany. To be blunt, I know what works when someone is dealing with someone just as you - a creditor/collector. I know how to envoke these protections and entitlements from debt collectors, creditors and the credit reporting agencies.

I also know that once a debtor believes that the collector is harassing or violating the law, it's time to stop talking and to have all further communications in writing. Written communications is a MUST for 2 main reasons. The first is to prevent any "he said-she said" situation - to reduce the likelyhood of miscommunication. The 2nd is to set the stage for a lawsuit and/or criminal prosecution against the collector/creditor.

I responded to your post only because of your reference to some non-existant fair debt collection act - it's the FDCPA. Your post gives the impression that the FDCPA applies to creditors - it does NOT except in California.

You were wrong on both counts.

If you or VMF choose to voluntarily comply with the restrictions of the FDCPA that's great. But I know how to effectively deal with those who don't and violate the law.

Further, what you comment about is corporate policy, and as a former employee at that. Companies CHANGE their policies all the time so your policy information may be out of date or become out of date at any time.

Let me put this another way. What do you think is going to achieve results quicker? A letter to them that tells them they are violating their own policy or a letter that demands they comply with federal law and sets the stage for a civil suit or criminal prosecution?

I know which letter I would send.

You have yet to site the law that Vanderbilt, as the creditor, must abide by that if someone requests they not call, that they don't have to and that there are some sort of legal ramifications. You are misleading people and giving people false hope because this law does not exist. The only good advice you could possibly give is that they pay on time. That is all.

As I know all to well, VMF does practice the FDCPA! They may not have to but they try to enforce the policy.... If you have questions or want to confirm simply contact David Barton and ask his # is 865-380-3000 ext 2602.... He would be glad to confirm the facts of this.

Not sure why you would argue something you have no idea about..... I was over a collection team for 10 years and KNOW exactly what they expect!

I suggest the OP read the FDCPA. It does not apply to CREDITORS.

The ONLY exception to this is for residents of California because of a California statute called the Rosenthal FDCPA.

I was not let go but was in upper management for 10 years and know what goes on there day in and day out......
We DO abide by the FDCPA and enforce the rules... But the collectors receive a $625 bonus at the end of the month so they have to terminate employees that get out of the box due to the large amount of law suits.
You may want to go work there and get the policies before you start talking a bunch of bull!!

Your cred flew out the window when you threw the FDPCA out there. That is for third party collectors - not first party creditors which is what Vanderbilt is.
FDCPA does not apply to them. Once again - bad information.
And I don't believe someone is going to get fired for doing their job properly. Apparently that is the excuse they gave to let you go but it may not be true.

Note: First if a customer gives written notice that they do not want anymore calls the Fair Debt Collection Act protects them if they are being harrassed. Which calling them more than twice a day is against VMF policy.
Also it is VMF policy if a customer calls them and states they do not want anymore contact by phone they have to put the Do Not Call Flag on their account. This is a written policy by VMF.
They are terminating employees for this and for breaking the FDCA but the customers are not familiar with their rights. VMF has been sued by many customers due to the exact things these customers are complaining about.

I KNOW this for a FACT!

Note: First if a customer gives written notice that they do not want anymore calls the Fair Debt Collection Act protects them if they are being harrassed. Which calling them more than twice a day is against VMF policy.
Also it is VMF policy if a customer calls them and states they do not want anymore contact by phone they have to put the Do Not Call Flag on their account. This is a written policy by VMF.
They are terminating employees for this and for breaking the FDCA but the customers are not familiar with their rights. VMF has been sued by many customers due to the exact things these customers are complaining about.

I KNOW this for a FACT!

"2. Call immediately and advise the first person that you speak to you want a Do Not Call Flag on your loan. They by law have to flag your loan and can not call at all. IF they do the account rep can and will be fired. Also you have a valid reason to sue them if they call."

As long as someone has a, or had a, relationship with a business entity, they are allowed to call you. You can't even block them with a "do not call" registry. This is some false hope for people and could cause them more trouble than they already have.

"2. Call immediately and advise the first person that you speak to you want a Do Not Call Flag on your loan. They by law have to flag your loan and can not call at all. IF they do the account rep can and will be fired. Also you have a valid reason to sue them if they call."

As long as someone has a, or had a, relationship with a business entity, they are allowed to call you. You can't even block them with a "do not call" registry. This is some false hope for people and could cause them more trouble than they already have.

"2. Call immediately and advise the first person that you speak to you want a Do Not Call Flag on your loan. They by law have to flag your loan and can not call at all. IF they do the account rep can and will be fired. Also you have a valid reason to sue them if they call."

As long as someone has a, or had a, relationship with a business entity, they are allowed to call you. You can't even block them with a "do not call" registry. This is some false hope for people and could cause them more trouble than they already have.

"2. Call immediately and advise the first person that you speak to you want a Do Not Call Flag on your loan. They by law have to flag your loan and can not call at all. IF they do the account rep can and will be fired. Also you have a valid reason to sue them if they call."

As long as someone has a, or had a, relationship with a business entity, they are allowed to call you. You can't even block them with a "do not call" registry. This is some false hope for people and could cause them more trouble than they already have.