LHR update: the $5000 difference is INTEREST!
Today I received a call from LHR’s Robert Hanny. He is a typical collector, offensive and threatening and he won’t admit to any wrong doing. He stated that the over $5,000 difference between the statements and the LHR demand is INTEREST.
He emailed me my client’s “application”, the Prequalified Acceptance Certificate. I see NOTHING about interest on it and I just sent this email to Mr. Hanny:
Mr. Hanny,
Thank you for the “Prequalified Acceptance Certificate.” Since it has been scanned and it is hard to read, could you please point out to us where the document discloses that interest will be charged?
What interest rate is legally permissible?
What gives LHR the right to charge interest?
What gives LHR the right to not disclose how much interest it charges even after numerous disputes?
What gives LHR the right to demand “documentation” from my client in response to her dispute?
I’m not a lawyer, but I thought that collectors are to validate the debt upon receipt of consumer disputes and I’ve seen nothing in the FDCPA requiring consumers to document their disputes.
Also, since you stated during our telephone call that you don’t want me to publish anything inaccurate, I once again offer LHR the opportunity to review my DRAFT complaint prior to submission to regulators. It will be published at http://credit-reporting-collection-ftc-complaints.info/ and I will be sending MY complaint and documentation to the FTC and my client will be sending copies of my complaint to the WA and NY AGs.
I take great pride in my publications and I ensure that the subjects of my documentaries have the opportunity to review my publications and complaints. However, my previous offers to LHR were declined and Allison specifically stated last Monday that she did NOT want to review the complaint draft. As I previously stated, the complaint will also be provided to consumer attorneys.
Please let me know whether you want to review my DRAFT complaint and of course advise of any inaccuracies in my publications to date at http://creditsuit.org/credit.php/blog/C188/
I have already wasted countless hours on this matter because LHR refused to comply with the FDCPA and FCRA (reporting the original loan amount and loan type incorrectly) and refused to disclose how it arrived at the balance. As previously stated, my client disputed the account with Bank of America and maybe LHR ought to pursue Bank of America for selling the account without disclosure of my client’s dispute.
It is my opinion that the sale of consumer debts to debt buyers ought to be illegal and I hope that my LHR documentary will serve this purpose.
Sincerely,
Christine Baker
There are so many FCRA and FDCPA violations, it’ll take many hours to get that complaint ready for publication. But it’ll be worth the effort because I really feel that the sale of debts to scummy debt buyers must be prohibited and ALREADY violates privacy laws. Please see my recent post:
Why can banks SELL your personal information (with the debt) to ANY criminal willing to pay?
The LHR collectors are a typical example of the kind of thugs that lie, lie and lie again, while cheerfully ignoring every law on the book. If you haven’t watched the Dateline documentary about LHR yet:
Video: Dateline debt collection expose features LHR
Does the company ever get sued, though, like, for ... ?
Oh yeah, we bring in a lot of money, so it’s like, it’s worth it for people still to be illegal and collect money
And that’s the truth. They make SO MUCH MONCY, the occasional lawsuit doesn’t make any difference. It’s a cost of doing business as a debt buyer.
I just hope that MY approach with the PUBLISHED complaints will get the legislators’ and class action lawyers’ attention.
Posted by Christine on 10/15/2009 at 02:28 PM
2008 - 2009 FCRA - FDCPA violations • LHR refusal to validate • (0) Comments • Permalink
