i signed as the policy holder on card ,,i owe $2000 they said pay 1000 we close the account i said no i couldnt get that amount of cash ,,,6 months and longer they have been calling,,want posted dated checks whiich i dont want to do i want these monkeys off my back,,,said they are calling my work and garnishing wages which i told them they cant do that,,he sid if they sign off that it will go to court i said for $2000?? would they take me to court for a small amount like this oh and both your links dont work

I wish those that are getting bothered by MJR that we can have our revenge.

[[Balance of Post deleted by Monty Loree we don't need revenge on our site... that's not what the site is about... thanks. ]]

I would call them up and let them know they have the wrong person.

i am having my own problems with mjr. they sent me a letter that does not belong to me but my father and i would like to know how do they think i am him .... i am not a man who is in my 50s when in reality i am in my early 30s
Is there anyway i can get my address removed from their files...

or has there been anyone else that has had simular problems as this

Yet again BPCPA seems to speak from both sides of its mouth.

You say they tell you MJR is not licended in BC.

I do not doubt that is is what they told you.

Perhaps you can again communicate with them and ask them why, if these folks are not licensed, BPCPA's own web site says as of 5 minutes ago that they indeed are licensed and operate with Debt Collection license # 17057 and listed other info as in my last post...that is... under the name of...MJR Collection Services Limited ..at... 7033 Telford Way Mississauga ON Canada L5S1V4 and licensed to 2007-12-31 and from...1998-01-27.

That post gave you the link to the PCBPA so that you can check out my info yourself and see how they are obviously operating without a clue whether theses guys are licensed or not.

Always refreshing to know that the "police", pardon the pun, who police the police..... i.e. the BCBPA who polices the collection industry... if you will, tell you out of one month that MJR are not licenced but at their sight, say they are.

I guess it depends on who you talk to...or perhaps what day of the week it is?????

Is it any wonder parasites in the collection business reign supreme and very rarely are held accountable for the law breaking activities daily in this and every other province of this country.

BA

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

I have filed a complaint with BPCPA, and they have contacted me. BPCPA is opening a file, and told me that it appears MJR doesn't have licencing in BC and not to deal with MJR.

I have also sent a dispute to Equifax. And will be getting a credit report from Transunion next week, then I can file a dispute with Transunion.

So far, I haven't heard from MJR since June 1.

I'm not sure if the card was issued in BC, I would think so because the primary lived in BC, but I didn't know him when he opened the card. I am unable to give specific dates for the transactions, or when the last payment was made because I don't know when/what they are. And I haven't acknowledged the debt, I faxed MJR that I dispute it.

If there are any questions that I can answer, just ask. And thank you again for your time.

I tend to agree with you that, in principle, the action of signing an application for a credit card may be the only critical factor in assessing the validity of the contract. But I'm not so sure the courts wouldn't interpret the lack of an activation as a declining of the contract. Besides, don't you have to activate your card within a specific period of time or else the card is deemed cancelled? So the deliberate omission to perform that act might well (in a looser sense) be a refusal of the contract. Yes I know, in theory, perhaps not; however, small claims jurisprudence is less strict than that of a higher civil court. The judges are allowed to dispense with a lot of technicalities to get to the "heart of the matter" to ensure fairness. I'm not trying to pass a legal opinion on it because it's a rather peculiar situation.

Having said all that, to be on the safe side, I proceeded to advise the girl to assume the worst case scenario until she could come up with more details about dates and payments made on the account. That is to say, assume that she is liable to be sued - although, I'm almost 100% sure she won't.

So that's why it's a good idea to be careful about doing anything to acknowledge the debt as we've both emphasized.

The appropriate sections regarding debt acknowledgment and the possible renewal of any limitation period is contained in the BC Limitations Act, Section 5 [(1); 2(a),(b); 5, 6(a) and 7]. A copy below is reprinted for reference. Note the vagueness on just what may constitute a written acknowledgment. That's why I advised the girl to not write MJR any letters, unless absolutely necessary. Better to simply call them up and tell them to take her to court if they feel they have a case. Note particularly, subsections 5.2.b(i),(ii)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BC LIMITATIONS ACT

Effect of confirming a cause of action

5 (1) If, after time has begun to run with respect to a limitation period set by this Act, but before the expiration of the limitation period, a person against whom an action lies confirms the cause of action, the time during which the limitation period runs before the date of the confirmation does not count in the reckoning of the limitation period for the action by a person having the benefit of the confirmation against a person bound by the confirmation.

(2) For the purposes of this section,

(a) a person confirms a cause of action only if the person

(i) acknowledges a cause of action, right or title of another, or

(ii) makes a payment in respect of a cause of action, right or title of another,

(b) an acknowledgment of a judgment or debt has effect

(i) whether or not a promise to pay can be implied from it, and

(ii) whether or not it is accompanied by a refusal to pay,

(c) a confirmation of a cause of action to recover interest on principal money operates also as a confirmation of a cause of action to recover the principal money, and

(d) a confirmation of a cause of action to recover income falling due at any time operates also as a confirmation of a cause of action to recover income falling due at a later time on the same account.

(3) If a secured party has a cause of action to realize on collateral, either of the following is a confirmation by the payer or performer of the cause of action:

(a) a payment to the secured party of principal or interest secured by the collateral, or

(b) any other payment to the secured party in respect of that party's right to realize on the collateral, or any other performance by the other person of the obligation secured.

(4) If a secured party is in possession of collateral, either of the following is a confirmation by the secured party to the payer or performer of the payer's or performer's cause of action to redeem the collateral:

(a) acceptance by the secured party of a payment to the secured party of principal or interest secured by the collateral, or

(b) acceptance by the secured party of

(i) payment to the secured party in respect of that party's right to realize on the collateral, or

(ii) any other performance by the other person of the obligation secured.

(5) For the purposes of this section, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the maker.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person has the benefit of a confirmation only if the confirmation

(a) is made to the person or to a person through whom the person claims, or

(b) is made in the course of proceedings or a transaction purporting to be under the Bankruptcy Act (Canada).

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person is bound by a confirmation only if any of the following applies:

(a) the person made the confirmation;

(b) after the confirmation is made, the person becomes, in relation to the cause of action, a successor of the person who made the confirmation; ..........................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the myriad legislation pertaining to the assignment of debts, that's good to know. But I've seen bloggers complain about judges ignoring the fact that agencies didn't present any assignment documentation either to the debtor or the court and the judge allowed the claim anyway. However, it would always provide the legal basis for an appeal.

Again, in this lady's situation, I think it's all huffing and puffing on the part of MJR.

Ray

Hey Folks,

Thanks for the great replies,
shelmicka asked me to post her post on MJR, as she isn't very good at posting... I'm hoping that she'll be able to reply if she needs to.

Thanks again.

I'm going to have a very quickly look at that mjr link given below..

Cheers.

Here's some more info to chew on....

I just read again the federal government's law re collection practices.

It can fe found at.... http://consumer.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/oca-bc.nsf/en/ca01786e_3.html

I would encourage anyone having problems with collectors to not only read their provincial law..but to have a look at this one also.

In some cases, the subject matter..ie harassment for the sake of argument, may have more protections at the federal level than in the provincial law...so it is important to read BOTH.

A point in question.

In my response below this one, I talk briefly about legal assignments of debts and the inability to locate BC law on the subject. I was looking for a requirement to give notice, and if said notice had to be in writting or simply verbal.

Well, this just in... hehe..

The federal Act clearly shows that it may be more powerful than your own provincial laws. It says that in a situation where the federal law covers the same issue as the provincial one but gives more protection to the debtor..then the federal one applies.

On the contrary, it also says that where the provincial law covering the same issue is more powerful than the federal one, then the provincial one appies.

An example of both follows...

On the subject of assignments... the federal law.. called the Harmonized List Of Prohibited Collection Practices says.... at section 1 (c) ... that were there is an assignment to the collector, he/she must give the debtor notice of the assignment.

Unfortunately this law does not state if such notice has to be in writing or not. (For Nova Scotians, there used to be an Assignment of Debts Act, not sure if still in place, and that called for any notice to be IN WRITING.)

I also talked in the earlier response on the subject of directing that all future collector communications be not by phone but by mail.

Well, the above federal law also talks about this.

At section 12 (a) the federal law says that if you tell your collector not to call but write only, and you give this message IN WRITING to the collector and also provide an address to write to, the collector must follow that direction and stop calling you.

In a twist from the above, this federal law actually gives LESS protection for those in BC than our own BPCPA requirements on the subject. A careful read there clearly shows that the law in BC DOES NOT REQUIRE THE DIRECTIVE to communicate only in writing, be itself put IN WRITING as well.

THUS, a verbal notification meets the requiremetns of the Act. (However, I have been advised that in BC a policy directive exists that says such notice must be in writing. I have advised the authorities that this POLICY is inconsietent with the Act, and to please forward to me a copy of the policy..IN WRITING.

Surprise surpise...the BPCPA ignored the request and it has sat in limbo for months.

BA

Great response Ray.

I'll add my 3 cents worth, but in brief.

MJR's inability to figure out the time in BC, if in fact this person writes from BC, is NOT a valid defence on the collector's part to violating the provincial law re NOT CALLING before 7 a.m.

If the writer signed as a guarantor or co-signor, but just can't remember, ?????, it seems he or she may well be on the hook for the debt, as mentioned in your response. The fact that he/she may not have activated their copy of a card issued on the same account may be of little consequence.

But the BC Statute of Limitations still kicks in. It is important to note that in BC, the law clearly requires any acknowledgement of the debt... by the debtor, to be IN WRITING, and not in a telephone call were the collector might trip the possible debtor up in a heated conversation. (it is imparitive that anyone writing on the debtor's (????) behalf also NOT refer to the DEBT..but to the ALLEGED DEBT.

If an advocate screws this up, and obviously is writing on the person's behalf, his/her screw-up might be construed legally as an admission of the debt.

With regards to advising the collector NOT TO CALL, but only deal with him/her in writing, the law in BC clearly states that after giving such direction to the collector, any subsequent calls are a violation of the law, regardless of what province the call originated in.

If MJR actually purchased the debt it would seem this is now a situation were we have an assignment of debts. While searching some time ago for some direction in this regard in BC, and not finding any, it seems that elsewhere in Canada there are provincial laws that require that any such ASSIGNMENT be in writing to the debtor and information provided as to the fact that the debtor ought not to attempt any payments to the original creditor from that point on as it no longer has any interest, pardon the pun, in the debt.

Failing such notice, a lack of evidence of an assignment may well be a valid legal defence to any claims of debt to the collector.

BC law also makes it illegal for a collector to say they have a court date, when, in this case it seems they have not even told the debtor (????) that their intent is to seek permission from the creditor to take the matter to court.

It seems that there is plenty here for the governing authority in BC to sink their teeth in, should they be sufficiently motivated to do so. (I'm not at all impressed with their record on this count)

A couple of tips for BC residents (like me.)

The collection law in this province is contained in a chapter in what is called the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and this animal is SUPPOSSED to be policed by an agency called the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Agency. They have a web site at...

http://www.bpcpa.ca/index.php?option=com_licensesearch&Itemid=138

At their home page, along the left side are several links...the first being a link to collectors licensed in the province. If you click on this you can see that MJR is licensed in the province, though they might not have physical presence here. (Which might pose an interesting challenge to their prereqisites to be licensed at all in the province.. but that is another matter for another time.)

Here's what is on the site.... Debt Collection license # 17057, MJR Collection Services Limited, 7033 Telford Way, Mississauga ON, Canada, L5S1V4, licensed till 2007-12-31 and since 1998-01-27

Also on the site can be found the exact wording of the law with regards to collectors. Incidentaly, those in the consumer reporting business.... the credit bureaus... also are covered by another section of this same law, and thus, policed by the same authority.

To wrap up, I would encourage the debtor (????) to write MJR, NOT acknowledge the debtor but refer to it as "ALLEGED" and in this letter tell them directly to not telephone him/her again and to deal only in writing.

Make two copies. One for themselves and one for the folks at the BPCPA and therein outline the story, including tidbits from you and I Ray.

cheers

BA.