- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:27 pm to Catman88
quote:
Did they remove it?
I paid it so i could finish refinancing my house and move on, wasn't going to wait around over $50
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:29 pm to yellowfin
Same here. I just paid it because I was buying a house. I was already nervous enough.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:32 pm to rmc
quote:
I don't know enough about the FDCPA to tell you where to go next, but usually those requests are just a prelude to a lawsuit if no response is given. I'm not sure what can occur with an insufficient response.
The FDCPA does not cover this. Not sure it is worth it to speak with an attorney who handles these kind of cases.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:40 pm to casualobserver
quote:
The FDCPA does not cover this. Not sure it is worth it to speak with an attorney who handles these kind of cases.
I believe rmc is an attorney.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:41 pm to NameWithheld
quote:
via motor vehicle records.
The same db that the same ordinance claims it does not apply a record to?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:42 pm to Catman88
quote:
They have to cease ALL contact until a suit is brought up. Yes. What are you not understanding
This is wrong. The FDCPA's protections are inapplicable to this since it is not a "debt," as defined. Fines are not covered since there isn't an underlying transaction.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:44 pm to yellowfin
quote:
I paid it so i could finish refinancing my house and move on, wasn't going to wait around over $50
Wait so you refused a debt they put it on your CBR and you paid it and they took it off? Did you ask them for a Pay for Delete in advance?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:51 pm to Catman88
quote:
Posted by Catman88 quote: The FDCPA does not cover this. Not sure it is worth it to speak with an attorney who handles these kind of cases. I believe rmc is an attorney.
I assumed he was. Why did you assume that I'm not an attorney too?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:01 pm to casualobserver
Because you failed to give any reason as to why FDCPA does not cover this after matter of factly stating "This is wrong." 
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:11 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
The city of Lafayette is already working on contracting out with collection attorneys to start suing on these tickets.
They are "talking" about doing this only so the issue remains fresh in the heads of the lemmings who can be scared into paying.
They won't do anything like this because to bring a claim such as these bogus claims in court, they have to prove the "debtor" was put in default and provided actual notice of the debt/default. They can't do that because they have no proof that these "tickets" were ever mailed in the first place.
I'll take notice once I see Redflex sending tickets certified mail or via process server. Until then, the game is to convince enough of these "debtors" to pay up so the Tony Trammel/Joey Durel slush fund keeps being replenished.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:15 pm to LegalTiger
quote:
Tony Trammel
Not there anymore, but I get your point.
It is my opinion that this doesn't get done in this administration. We are looking at a new Pres and Council in the next election. These cameras may not make it into the next administration as they could vote them out the second they take office. Almost a guarantee reelection. Again...IMO.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:18 pm to LegalTiger
quote:
They are "talking" about doing this only so the issue remains fresh in the heads of the lemmings who can be scared into paying.
Not sure what you mean there... many cities around the country already use debt collectors for these and other outstanding fines.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:24 pm to NameWithheld
quote:
Not sure what you mean there... many cities around the country already use debt collectors for these and other outstanding fines.
He was speaking of the proposed lawsuit that LCG was going to do to get some of the fines. Its not happening.
As a matter of fact, my letter didn't come from a collection agency. It was a law firm. And when they sent the "validation", it was a copy of the original ticket, with the original fine scratched out and a late fee tacked onto it, written ontop of the scratch out. I'm pretty sure they can't do that, legally, to collect debt.
Also, It would be worth looking into if that company even has a license to collect debt in the state as they were from Ohio and may not have.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:25 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
? why not? Doesn't City ordinance make owner liable?
You can't hide behind a city ordinance to avoid meeting your burden of proof in court, even a low burden of proof that is the standard for civil actions.
Despite what the supporters of the money grab that is for-profit law enforcement think, you can't sue an inanimate object, nor can you constitutionally require someone you name as a defendant to aid you in meeting your burden by forcing them to point their finger at the actual driver when an alleged violation took place.
Of course this is why the Lafayette city/parish leaders haven't found any sucker lawyer willing to bring these claims on their behalf for a portion of the collected fee or on a contingency basis. They would have done so two years ago when Tony Tramell and that old fart Charlie Buckles (who claims to be a small government conservative Republican, lol) were ratcheting up the rhetoric on the TV news stations about suing people over these unpaid "tickets".
It's only about maximizing the number of scared people, not at all about public safety or any ad hominem character flaw of those who refuse to give in to this awful money grab.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:28 pm to SaintEB
quote:
As a matter of fact, my letter didn't come from a collection agency. It was a law firm. And when they sent the "validation", it was a copy of the original ticket, with the original fine scratched out and a late fee tacked onto it, written ontop of the scratch out. I'm pretty sure they can't do that, legally, to collect debt.
Who sent you this "validation"? The firm in Cleveland, Ohio or the credit bureaus themselves? What additional steps did you take once you received that, if you don't mind my asking?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:29 pm to Catman88
quote:
The same db that the same ordinance claims it does not apply a record to?
Basically, yes. I would think it would be the same database that an agency has access to in order to determine who owns the vehicle left on the side of the road for the past three months... and an ordinance could exist to provide the basis to have it towed and fine the owner for leaving a junked vehicle on the side of the road.
ETA: Accidentally left out the bolded part
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:30 pm to LegalTiger
quote:
Who sent you this "validation"? The firm in Cleveland, Ohio or the credit bureaus themselves? What additional steps did you take once you received that, if you don't mind my asking?
The firm. It never hit my credit. After the second failed attempt at validation, I send a Cease and Desist. Never heard from them again. That was just my experience. I can't say this happens across the board.
ETA: Not a single letter from them or me was certified.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:31 pm to LegalTiger
quote:
You can't hide behind a city ordinance to avoid meeting your burden of proof in court, even a low burden of proof that is the standard for civil actions.
Your honor attached is an affidavit of the dept of motor vehicles attesting Legal Tiger is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
City ordinance blah blah says the owner of the vehicle is liable for this infraction.
City asks for judgment as prayed for.
.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 2:32 pm to Pennymoney
quote:
Your honor attached is an affidavit of the dept of motor vehicles attesting Legal Tiger is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
City ordinance blah blah says the owner of the vehicle is liable for this infraction.
City asks for judgment as prayed for.
Funny thing about your statement is that you'll never get in front of a judge.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News