Asset Systems Inc

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this complaint.  We have responded to the CFPB as well as the Revdex.com and the AG for this issue.  The current issue arises from the rejection of the card on file for the payment being rejected.
     A default judgment was entered on November 26, 2013 in the matter of Case #[redacted] in Circuit Court of Washington County Oregon. (Copy attached.)
     There have been no fees added to the judgment account whatsoever since the one and only garnishment issued in May of 2014 (which was withdrawn) that gave rise to the first series of complaints that we would not accept a payment plan, resulting in a payment arrangement of the defendant’s instruction.  What has been added to the account is post judgment interest cited in the judgment which accrues on the total amount of the judgment.  A copy of page 3 of the courts docket attesting to the last action being the release of the garnishment on July 14, 2014 is also attached.
     We have already agreed to resume the payment plan that the defendant has required and continue to split that payment of $200 between the judgment account ($150) and other accounts not currently in suit that, as of this writing, totals $2252.14 ($50). The amount of the non-judgment account is clearly the amount that the defendant is concluding is being added as fees.
     We remain amenable to the payment plan directed by the defendant and hope that no future payments are missed without communication.
 
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]

Response to Complaint ID [redacted]
Revdex.com
Attn: [redacted]
Re:       Asset Systems, Inc. vs. [redacted]
            [redacted]...

[redacted]
Asset Systems, Inc. (ASI) had eight (8) outstanding debts placed with our office between the dates of November 8, 1994 and July 14, 1999 for collection. After each placement a validation letter was sent to Mr. and Ms. [redacted] giving them the opportunity to dispute the validity of the debt within a 30-day period from the date of each letter. ASI received no disputes either verbally or in writing.
ASI spoke to Ms. [redacted] 3 times between the dates of December 9, 1994 and March 16, 1995 and we agreed to a monthly arrangement of ten dollars ($10.00) per month due to Ms. [redacted] indicating that she was going on a leave of absence with her employer. No payments were made.
ASI attempted to reach Mr. and Ms. [redacted] by phone an additional twelve (12) times by phone between the dates of April 19, 1995 and January 5, 1999 and each call was unanswered and voicemails were not returned. On January 22, 1999 we were able to connect with Ms. [redacted] by phone. She was offered a payment arrangement and Ms. [redacted] indicated she would attempt to get a loan to pay the balance. No payments were made.
ASI attempted to reach Mr. and Ms. [redacted] an additional 3 times before the file was forwarded for litigation-review. Suit was commenced by our attorney’s office and Mr. [redacted] was personally served legal documents May 26, 2000 and accepted a secondary copy on behalf of Ms. [redacted]. A sub-mailing was completed June 5, 2000.
On May 30, 2000, our attorney’s office received a fax from Mr. and Ms. [redacted] disputing validity of the debt and requested our office cease communication with the exception of mailing the verification of debt. (Attached) As requested, all phone numbers on file were flagged not to call. Verification of debt was mailed to Mr. and Ms. [redacted] July 6, 2000 along with a notice notifying our office was proceeding with judgment in ten (10) days from the date of the notice. Neither ASI nor our attorney’s office received any response verbally or in writing to the verification of debt or the notice of our intent to take judgment.
Judgment was entered through the [redacted] County Circuit Court on August 1, 2000. Subsequently a garnishment was issued and served to Mr. [redacted]’s employer on December 5, 2000. ASI received payments starting December 18, 2000 through April 6, 2001 totaling $1,972.20. After that date the account was placed into an uncollectable status while our office attempted to determine a new asset for collection purposes. Again, as requested, our office was unable to call Mr. or Ms. [redacted] based on their prior request to cease communication.
After years of the account remaining in the uncollectable status, our attorney’s office requested a judgment renewal/extension which was filed July 30, 2010. The account was then placed back in to its uncollectable status.
A new account was placed with our office November 2, 2015 which provided updated information and collection efforts began, in turn revealing a bank account. Due to the age of the account, the attorney who filed suit on ASI’s behalf died and her firm closed. Our new attorney firm filed a substitution of counsel through [redacted] County Court and sent a validation letter to Mr. and Ms. [redacted] as required by law and a garnishment was issued to US Bank.
Our attorney’s office spoke to attorney Ted T[redacted] who called on behalf of Mr. and Ms. [redacted] and negotiated a settlement with ASI to keep funds held in the US Bank account, plus an additional $5000 in order to satisfy the judgment in full. Neither the funds held by the bank nor the personal payment from Mr. and Ms. [redacted] have been received to date.
Albeit the majority of the life of our judgment remained in an uncollectable status due to the cease communication request by Mr. and Ms. [redacted], it’s clear that both Mr. and Ms. [redacted] were well aware of the debt. The case number listed above is a valid case number and verification of debt was previously provided as noted above. In addition, based on the communication with Mr. and Ms. [redacted]’s attorney, it seems a moot point to return funds they have already negotiated into their settlement offer which ASI has accepted.
Thank you,
Jackie R[redacted]
Asset Systems, Inc. Supervisor

Hello [redacted],        Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reply to the business' response. I'm sorry that I didn't see the original when you sent it to me.                   I want to update my complaint about Asset Systems because I made a couple of errors on my calculations of the debt that I owe.       First of all, the rep made it appear that on September 8, I called her office in response to phone calls from them and I demanded that she allow me to make payments or I was going to call the Department of Justice.               That is not how it happened.         My main issue right now has to do with funds that were added to my debt after we agreed to a payment plan. I will get to those details shortly in this letter.         I want to comment more on the latest incidents.         My recent contact with Asset Systems was due to the fact that I noticed that they had not debited my bank account for the bill that I owe.          The card that I pay my bills with was used to make fraudulent charges and so the bank issued me another card.         I have two debts that come out of my checking account every month. I never pay attention, they are just automatically deducted. However, as it turns out, only one was attached to the account itself, but Asset Systems made their deductions from my card. The funds came from the same place, but a different method.         I generally receive a reminder note from Asset to say that the money was going to come out of my bank on the 5th, but I did not notice that it referred to my debit card as the form for the transaction. That was my fault.        In fact, this whole situation should be blamed on me because it is not Asset’s responsibility to update my account.        On September 5, I was doing my budget. While inputting the debits and credits for August I noticed that there wasn’t any record of Asset taking a payment from my account. I immediately knew what the problem was and felt that I should contact them right away. However it was Saturday on a holiday weekend so I was pretty certain that they were closed, and so I would call them on Tuesday the 8th.        When I contacted Asset and spoke to Samantha, I explained to her what had happened and that I wanted to give her my new card number. She told me that my account needed to be paid in full. This caught me by surprise because I felt that it was a simple mistake that I was trying to correct and that was the purpose of my phone call.         I was told that it wasn’t her problem and that it is my responsibility to notify them of any changes with the card. I told her that I was aware of that, but I thought that they deducted straight from my account.         She said that they tried to call me but I never responded. I explained that I never received any phone messages from them. Then I remembered that there was a period of time when I was having issues with my phone. It was not saving any phone calls in my log, so it is possible that they did try to call. At this point, I felt like she probably assumed that I was just coming up with excuses.         My debit card number was compromised and my phone wasn’t working. Those things happened, but I can definitely understand their perspective. I missed a payment and was ignoring their phone calls.          Since I called her on my own, to explain what had happened, I didn’t expect any problems. But she would not accept anything that I had to say.         After she told me that they had called me, I asked if they had also called my wife, because she is on the contract and her phone was working. Samantha reiterated the fact that it was up to me to notify them of any changes. I agree, but since she brought up the fact that they tried to contact me, I was wondering how hard they really tried. Because besides calling my wife, they could have sent me a letter to tell me that there was a problem with the charge, especially since a note is sent prior to deducting from my account. I would have corrected the issue right away.         I believe that Samantha wants to close my account as soon as possible so she didn’t want to take anymore payments from me. Because I asked her if anything could be done and she said “no”.         I know that they can take payments if they want to. But she would not take my new card number or a payment unless it was for the whole thing.         I was very frustrated and that is when I told her that I was going to contact the Department of Justice. I don’t feel bad about my decision. If I think that a business is taking advantage of me as a consumer, it should be my right and duty to report them to the appropriate Consumer Protection Agencies.        I decided to go to Asset's website and I put in my account number and made a payment there since Samantha would not accept it from me over the phone. I also set up an automatic deduction to be taken from my new card. As I said, it wasn’t that they couldn’t take payments from me but rather she just didn’t want to.        When I originally agreed to make payments on my debt, there were circumstances surrounding the decision.        In my conversation with Samantha in 2013, she told me that the entire amount of $3726 needed to be paid in full. I did not have access to that much money but I wanted to do whatever it took to avoid a garnishment. That would be a huge financial hardship on my family.         She asked me how long it would take to come up with the money. She suggested a couple of short timelines, but I told her that even if I was given a month, I couldn’t come up with that much money.        Samantha then talked about the payment plan and said that I could pay $300 per month. I was thinking more like $150, but there wasn’t any way that we could afford $300. We eventually agreed on $250.         She told me that in order for them to take payments, we needed to go through a legal process. So there would be fees added on to the $3726. Samantha told me that the additional expenses would bring the total owing to $6059. The new balance would be almost $2333 more.        I could not understand why I would need to pay so much more just to get on a payment plan. She said that it was their policy to go through the legal process in order to make the arrangements.        So my choice was to pay $3726 now or $6059 over a longer period of time. Since I knew that I couldn’t come up with $3726, I didn’t have a choice but to accept the offer.        I was afraid to question Samantha on the legalities of her proposal because I thought that she might take the entire deal off the table and I would need to pay the $3726 immediately.        Samantha told me during our conversation last month that the payment plan was offered as a courtesy, but I think that by paying the additional fees, I was charged for the opportunity and so it was not a courtesy.        Since we made the payment arrangements we have paid over $3500 towards the debt. That means that it would almost be paid off if the additional $2333 had not been added. But instead, we are barely half way through.        The extra fees that were added were frivolous because I was agreeing with a payment plan. She had me over a barrel and I had to accept the terms because I couldn’t afford the alternative.         I think that they should credit those extra charges back to me since they weren’t necessary and were added after the payment agreement was implemented, and that would mean that the total debt will nearly be paid in full and the account can be closed.         As of right now I'm paying the $200 per month.         Thanks again for looking into this.                                       [redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  I also am working with my lawyers office to negotiate the deal like they said below. When I submitted this response I did recall the debt and I apologize for that. 
This is from having my two sons and not having health insurance from those dates if this is what I think it is from. This truly has been devastating to me and my family. Sincerely, [redacted]

The following response was made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB, a true regulatory agency) on September 18, 2015:Asset Systems, Inc. (ASI) obtained a judgment against the complainant and his wife on November 26, 2013:On June 20, 2014 the complainant filed the first complaint, case...

#[redacted] (copy attached) in an effort to set a payment plan to resolve this same matter (copy of response attached). Previous to that, a complaint was filed with the Revdex.com in April of 2014 was closed by them after no response was submitted by the consumer to our answer (copy of the response is attached). Subsequent to our response, which cited our desire to compromise, withdraw our garnishment and set up a reasonable payment plan we contacted the [redacted] and made such an agreement. There have been no additional costs or fees added to their account since May 2014. We reached an agreement on June 30, 2014 for $200 per month and the consumer set up an automatic payment option, available at no charge. That plan was successful until August 2015. On July 27, 2015 we mailed a reminder letter to the consumer indicating we would be following his instruction to process his $200 payment on August 5, 2015. There being no response to the contrary and no mail return, that payment was processed and declined on August 5 with an "invalid card number". On August 12, 2015 a call was placed to the resident number on file:[redacted] and a message was left requesting a return call. On August 21, 2015, having no response to the message the account was transferred to a garnishment preparation status. The consumer returned the call on September 8, 2015 and indicated he was aware that the payment had been successful. He stated his id had been stolen and the card cancelled and indicated if we did not resume the payment plan he would be calling the Department of Justice. On September 9th, 2015 the consumer went on our webpage and made a $200 payment. On September 10, 2015 he called our office again and indicated he was unaware of his form of previous monthly payment and was requesting a breakdown of all charges; an hour later we received another auto-payment consent form which had been completed online resetting the $200 per month agreement to commence on October 5, 2015. We are prepared to continue with this payment plan but simply ask for communication from the consumer in the event that payment is not going to be kept.