In Bunce v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2014 WL 5849252 (D.Kan. 2014), Judge Marten concluded that a creditor’s charge-off of an account did not preclude the debt collector from charging interest.

The court concludes that simply because the original creditors charged off the accounts and stopped sending month statements does not preclude the assignee of the accounts from seeking to collect interest. In reaching this conclusion, the court finds persuasive recent decisions of our distinguished neighbors to the east addressing virtually identical actions. See Peters v. Northland Grp. Inc., No. 14–0488–ODS, 2014 WL 34854658, *1–2 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 30, 2014); Peters v. Finanicial Recovery Sys., No. 14–00489–GAF, 2014 WL 4723287, *2–3(W.D.Mo. Sept.18, 2014). ¶ Other courts have concluded reached similar conclusions. See Grochowski v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., No. C13–343 TSZ, 2014 WL 1516586, at *3 n. 2 (W.D.Wash. Apr.17, 2014) (“[c]ontrary to plaintiff’s assertion, Capital One’s decision to forego the contractual rate of interest did not relinquish its right to seek prejudgment interest at the statutory rate”; Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 5:13–147–DCR, 2013 WL 6191804, at *2–4 (E.D.Ky. Nov.26, 2013). . . .¶ The court finds that the plaintiffs’ allegations fail to present a plausible basis for inferring any waiver. Charging off the delinquent accounts is a federal regulatory requirement. Uniform Retail Credit Classification and Account Management Policy, 65 FR 36903–01. Accordingly, it is not a voluntary action of the creditor. Similarly whether the original lender must send monthly statements is determined by federal law. The absence of such statements fails to suggest “in some unequivocal manner” that the lenders waived interest charges.