CAMCO CAMCO Victims-DON'T GET MAD GET EVEN ! TAKE ACTION TODAY! ROCKFORD Illinois

There is nothing bad about the above case. Some attorney tried to go after camco and cap1 by reversing the actual laws. Basically, they tried to define cap1 as a collection agency and camco as the original creditor. hogwash. Cap1 would be liable under TILA and camco would be liable under the fdcpa for collectors. why they tried it backwards I will never know. I would guess for more damages. Be aware that Camco is still considered a collection agency and falls under the fdcpa. THAT is where the basis of your lawsuits should follow. The above caselaw just proves that.

I too was contacted by Camco last month. When they called and said I owed for a Wells Fargo charge card bill from 1984 the loan was up to $3500 ,if I paid them $500 then they would go away.

I couldn't remember if I had an old account with Well Fargo.My story is the same ,I told the to get lost.

Then I went on the internet and found Rip-offReport.com and found out how these scum bags work.

My question is,how do they get away with this?

How can a company/scumbags just call someone up at random and say they owe money. How are these people getting personal information about us? Are the credit reporting people selling them information?

But you know out of 20 people they call,one or two are scarred out of there whits and pay these people and the bill there paying ,might not even be theres. I might be wrong,but isn't this stealing? Can we put these scumbags in jail?

Maybe it's time we fight back, lets figure out a way to call them for a change,ty up there phone lines,do they have e mail?

I'm going to e mail and call all my friends and warn them about Camco, and tell them about Rip-offReport.com because THEY might be there next victim.

I found this ruling in CAMCO's favor. Ouch!

Volume 85 Number 2136
Friday, December 19, 2003 Page 674
ISSN 1523-2824
News

Truth in Lending
Mere Sale of Overdue Credit Card Account
Doesn't Subject Purchaser to TILA Standards

Credit card holders who thought their delinquent accounts had been settled and then were dunned years later for accumulated interest by firms that purchased those accounts cannot get relief under the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, according to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Neff v. Capital Acquisitions & Management Co., 7th Cir., No. 02-4186, 12/15/03).
The mere purchase of the open accounts did not make the purchasers "creditors" within the meaning of TILA, Judge Terence T. Evans holds. Therefore, the purchasers did not violate TILA by seeking to collect years of accrued interest without having sent the cardholders monthly billing statements. Under the terms of TILA, a "creditor" must have either "issued a credit card" or become the issuer's "agent," and the purchasers in this case did neither.

The court also decides that, when one purchaser sold an account to another, it did not become a "debt collector" subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


Challenged Conduct

The suit was brought by two holders of credit cards issued by nonparties.
The cardholders alleged that defendant Capital One FSB had purchased their delinquent accounts from the issuers and had settled the alleged debts with the cardholders. Almost 10 years later, however, the cardholders allegedly received letters from defendant Capital Acquisitions & Management Co. (CAMCO), which had purchased their accounts from Capital One. CAMCO demanded $2,835.32 from one cardholder and almost $7,000 from the other, most of which represented accumulated interest.

In their complaint against Capital One and CAMCO, the cardholders alleged that the defendants had violated TILA, the FDCPA, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act when they attempted to impose and collect interest on revolving credit accounts without sending monthly statements. The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

Neither Card Issuer Nor Agent

The Seventh Circuit, affirming, explains that, under 15 U.S.C. 1637(b), TILA requires "creditors" to send consumers monthly billing statements.

The cardholders alleged that Capital One and CAMCO became credit card issuers, and thus TILA creditors, when they purchased their open accounts. But the court rules that the claim did not square with TILA's definition of "creditor."

A "creditor" is defined in 15 U.S.C. 1602(f) as any person who issues an open-ended credit card. To meet that definition, 1602(n) requires that the person have either "issued a credit card" or been the issuer's "agent." "Neither defendant meets either requirement," the court holds.

A "credit card" is "something that is able to access a line of credit," according to the court, which cites the Federal Reserve Board staff's commentary to Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, Supp. 1 at 2(a)(15)-2. Neither Capital One nor CAMCO granted the cardholders the right to "incur debt" or to "defer payment of debt" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1602(e) or any other credit privileges at all, the court observes. Since they did not issue the plaintiffs a "credit card," the defendants are not "card issuers" under TILA, the court concludes.

Furthermore, they were not "agents" of card issuers within the meaning of 1602(n), the court determines. "To become an agent, there must be an agreement that 'the cardholder may use a line of credit with the financial institution to pay obligations incurred by use of the credit card,' " according to the court, which quotes 12 C.F.R. pt 226, Supp. I, 2(a)(7). Here, the plaintiffs had no credit privileges with Capital One or CAMCO, who in turn had no contractual relationship with the original card issuers. The issuers' sale of the cardholders' accounts is not sufficient to make Capital One and CAMCO the agents of the issuers, the court holds.

The cardholders' reliance on the rule for when "creditors" are allowed to stop sending statements is thus "misplaced," the court observes. "Furthermore, because TILA and Regulation Z specifically address the circumstances of an assignee's obligations under the Act, we do not look to the 'normal rule' that an assignee assumes the duties of the assigning party."


Not Debt Collector

The FDCPA claim "fares no better," the court explains.
One of the cardholders argued that, when Capital One sold his debt to CAMCO, the sale resulted in further collection against him of a satisfied debt, in violation of the FDCPA. But the court, citing 15 U.S.C. 1629e, holds that the FDCPA applies only to debt collectors whose conduct is undertaken "in connection with the collection of any debt." Capital One was not a debt collector when it sold the cardholder's account to CAMCO because it did not directly or indirectly attempt to collect the cardholder's debt in selling its asset. Once the account was sold, it was "irrelevant" to Capital One whether the debt was collected or not.