Print the value of index0
D.C.S. DIVERSIFIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. DCS Lies / Misrepresentations Livermore California
I want to preface everything I put in this report that my wife has a debt and it should/will get paid in full! I am not disputing the validity of the debt. What I am going to address is my experience with respect to the lies & misrepresentations asserted by Diversified Collections Services (DCS).
Before you read my brief story understand that the way the system is set up with regards to Collection Agencies and student loans is counter-intuitive. The system is framed in a way to encourge collection agencies to intimidate and keep the borrower in further debt and wage garnishments. I say this because this was/is my experience. DCS along with the 15-20 other collection agencies are all competing to be the number 1 collection house for the federal government student loans. With that status they are privey to millions in collections and repeat business.
More importantly, the collection process is unnecessarly difficult and very stressful. I'm going to lay out in bullet form what I gleened from the whole process and woven within this story will be my experience.
As it relates to STUDENT LOANS:
- There is are guarantor (entity that owns the promissory note). In our case it was ASA (American Student Assistance). They sell your note off to companies that collect from you and gather fee's for doing so. They are generally courterous and willing to work with you by setting up payments and such. The company that bought up our loan was SAF (Student Assistance Foundation). They didn't buy the promisory note, they only bought the right to collect for it. ASA still owned the promissory note.
- We were derlick in our duty to pay that debt on time and communicate with them. Our fault and we own that. When you sign a promissory note it clearly indicates that upon 'default' you will agree to pay the balance in FULL. We defaulted so we are legally obligated to pay it in full.
- So, SAF sold back the note to ASA. "you can have that back ASA, those dope's are NOT paying". ASA then took it back and then highers DCS (Diversified Collection Services)
- DCS is the dirtbag kid on the block that will do anything to collect for the person who highers them. The legal form of the mob if you will. This company has a bag of tricks at their disposal up to and including skirting violations of the FDCPA rules. Don't believe me? Just google it and read the horror stories. If only 25% of those stories are true, then in my heart they are dirtbags.
- My wife received a letter early July 2010 indicating she owed a balance of $50,000. So I called DCS representative assigned to her case to address this. In speaking with him I had 4 options;
1. Pay off the total amount.
2 - 4. Put down payment(s) (depending on the amount of the downpayment your monthly payment plan would vary) and set up monthly payments.
The bottom 3 options were obsurd. The lowest plan was roughly $1,700 with a $415 monthly payment plan. I was then instructed that I would have to do something in 2 days or they would start the Wage Garnishment proceeding.
I asked the DCS representative if the down payment went to the principle. He said "Yes!". [Lie]. In fact it does not go to the down payment it goes to their (DCS) fee's, which is usually code for bonus's and or comissions. I verified that this was a lie with the guarantor (ASA). I was informed that those fee's or monies collected in the form of a 'downpayment' does not goto my debt our ASA at all. It stays with DCS.
However, the monthly fee's collected are divided out this way; 80% goes to interest and fees for the guarantor and 20% goes to the collection agency. NOTHING goes to principle. In our case that would be DCS.
- I called the DCS rep. back a few days later to explain that there was no way to pay the $1700. He was NOT rude. He was just non-responsive to our situation (for which I was more than willing to submit documenation, pay stubs, tax returns and anything else they wanted for proof that we were/are BROKE!). He could care less. Basically asserting that since we are refusing to pay (which we were not) that he was going to start the Wage Garnishment of 15% per paycheck immediately. Needless to say the conversation eneded immediatly.
- I called ASA (guarantor) back for further information. I was informed that DCS was in violation of the FDCPA laws by speaking to me about my wifes account. LEGALLY they have to get a release from her (verbal or written) to speak with me. They did not, so they are now in violation. I was also informed that I qualified for the "Rehabilitation Program". Which states that all I have to pay in 1% of the total balance for 6-9 months. On that 6th month the guarantor seeks out other agencies to purchase the rigts to our promissory note. Because at that time they have a history of payments which looks good to other companies. NO DOWN PAYMENT REQUIRED.
- I then asked the ASA rep. what should I do now that I have demonstrated the DCS is misleading, lieing to me and un willing to work towards a solution. Not to mention in violation of FDCPA's laws. I was given a manager's name and extension to call.
- I called the DCS manager as instructed. I explained all that had happened and what the guarantor had instructed me to do. By the conclusion of that phone call it was all settled.
OUTCOME: A $300 down payment and a montly payment of .5% (Yes, one half of a percent) of monthly payments for 6 months. After that I will be sent to another angency for lower payments and no more negative reporting to our credit scores.
General Info:
- Make sure you note every conversation and the content of that conversation with rep's. from collection agencies.
- Know your rights as it relates to your debt.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
PRA / Motion For Summary Judgement
#2Author of original report
Fri, November 06, 2015
So their at it again. In April of 2015 PRA filed a complaint in my jurisdiction alleging a number of thiings. I will upload the documents in an attempt to help anyone else dealing with junk debt buyers like Portoflio Recovery Associates. PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. The advice I am giving is not meant as legal advice. I am fighting PRA for my wife Pro Se.
So as I was saying, PRA filed a complaint againts my wife indicating she owes PRA just under $800.00 due to an unpaid debt they aquired through sale, assignment or other legal means. This is lie and they know it. They purchased the debt, it was not assigned to them nor were any legal means used. They bought it.
Following Trial Rule 56 (Standard Rule in Civil Procedings) I had 30 days to respond to the complaint. In their complaint submitted to the court they misrepresented the rule and stated that we had only 20 days to respond. PRA is very good at these little mis-representations. However, some states only allow 20 days. Although, that only represents a handful of them. We submitted our response to the court that same month and did not hear from them until July 2015. They sent a letter stating a settlement at $600.00.
I chopped their complaint up and down. Their response was to send me a settlement letter roughly knocking off $175.00 from the original complaint. Needless to say we did not respond to their offer. Why? Simple, there are a number of reasons but I'm not in the habit of giving money away. In 2011 my wife and I's financial situation was dire. We were hurting and trying to make it. Fastforward to 2015 and we are in a much better place with investments, savings and nicer things. So yes, I have the money to pay the debt and be done with it. I even have the money to hire an attourney to fight it for me should I want. But every attourney I've spoken to told me that it's just not worth it to them to fight it. I would end up paying them more than is owed. So, out of pure intrigue of the civil court system I am fighting this pro-se. So back to the reasons why PRA has moved to a Motion for Summary Judgement.
1. They cannot prove they own the debt. The copy of the credit card statment does not have matching account numbers with their provided 'assignment and bill of sale' signed by the lenders representative. They have some general photo-copied piece of paper with a bunch of legaleze typed out. To the lehman it looks all official. When you read it the only thing it says is that some acconts were transferred. Not that my wifes account with name, numbers etc on it. Courts want authentic documentation give to them.
2. The affiant (person signing the affidavit) is an employee of PRA and not in a legal position to speak to the veracity of a document created by another entitity. This is called hearsay. Rule 803(6) states under the business exception rule there are a number of expectations that a witness has to meet in order to verify work-product i.e.; statements etc. Being an employee of PRA how in the heck is she going to speak to the foundation, accuracy or truthfullness of the documents.
3. The caculated fees, interest and total amount owed is in dispute. I have two statments from them indicating different amounts owed. They cannot prove any purchases or payments on the account b/c the statements they have do not show any activity.
Will we win? It depends. The judge could be in a bad mood when he reviews it or we could have a judge that looks at the legal argument. Point one (1) should end it right there and shut down their Motion for Summary Judgement. If that happens then we will have won and will get our day in court. That will be where we present the points above in defense. PRA does not want a debt under $800 to go to court. The attourney fee's to do that is just cost-prohibited. To hire an attourney to fight it here where I'm at they will pay at least that amount to more than likely lose. They drive up from where they are at will end up costing them more as well.
MISC
- I went ahead and attached the response to their motion for summary judgement.
- We are going to find out in 10 days on what the judges decision is.