Use Deadlines in Your Letters: Just Ask Household's Attorney

[Credit Hawk 10]

HH Bank was reporting a 60-day late payment on a closed finance account my wife established with Seaman's Furniture (NY) back in 1999. Disputed w/ Equifax twice but HH continued to verify. Sent HH a letter on March 23 stating that I was filing suit in district court in fifteen (15) days unless they deleted the derogs or provided ME proof of the late payment. Note: My wife had copies of all statements and cancelled checks.

Wouldn’t you know it, she received a phone call on April 2 from a paralegal stating that their lawyer was reviewing her payment history. Received another phone call today stating that the trade lines would be removed.

Bottom line: It's been my experience that deadlines (15 days in this case) are a very effective means in getting results fast. On all my letters I state in bold face type "Notice: You have x number of days to respond or I am filing suit". More often than not, the letter receives a quick response via phone or expedited mail.

This tactic has been mentioned on this site before but well worth repeating.

[Methuss 10,102]

HH Bank was reporting a 60-day late payment on a closed finance account my wife established with Seaman's Furniture (NY) back in 1999. Disputed w/ Equifax twice but HH continued to verify. Sent HH a letter on March 23 stating that I was filing suit in district court in fifteen (15) days unless they deleted the derogs or provided ME proof of the late payment. Note: My wife had copies of all statements and cancelled checks.

Wouldn’t you know it, she received a phone call on April 2 from a paralegal stating that their lawyer was reviewing her payment history. Received another phone call today stating that the trade lines would be removed.

Bottom line: It's been my experience that deadlines (15 days in this case) are a very effective means in getting results fast. On all my letters I state in bold face type "Notice: You have x number of days to respond or I am filing suit". More often than not, the letter receives a quick response via phone or expedited mail.

This tactic has been mentioned on this site before but well worth repeating.

I like to include a copy of an already filled out complaint and tell them that this will be filed in X days if they fail to correct or prove up. It's effective most of the time.

[Credit Hawk 10]

I've done that too!

[CreditHog 10]

I sent this as an addendum to a DV letter sent via Fed-Ex

Documentation of collection harrassment

In addition your company has violated the FDCPA and the California Rosenthal Act.

If we do not resolve this issue in the next 30 days I will be seeking monetary compensation through small claims court for the following violations.

On the evening of 4/7/2004 I was contacted by your company. I was told that the conversation would be recorded and I asked the collector permission to record as well, he agreed. I have all this recorded. I promptly informed the collector that I disputed the debt but would be willing to pay if your company could produce original AT&T documentation showing me that I owed the debt. The collector informed me that this was impossible and that the debt was too old. I told him if you cannot produce verification then you could not report this debt to the credit bureaus.

I hung up and was called back in 15 minutes by someone claiming to be a supervisor who proceeded to engage me in a verbal confrontation. The supervisor also said there was no way to verify this debt but that I did owe it and it didn’t matter whether your agency had proof or not.

Then within hours the following occurred:

• Collection harassment:

(Your company called me at 6:26 a.m. on 4/8/2004)

FDCPA Section 805. (a)(1)

• Re-aging this debt and reporting it to the credit bureau as a form of debt enforcement

(Also on 4/8/2004 the debt was reported new as of 2/2004 to the Credit Bureaus)

FCRA Section 605 ©

• Inability to produce verification of this debt:

(This is what your agent and supervisor told me on 4/7/2004 as stated above)

FDCPA Section 809 (

• This debt cannot be enforced as it is beyond the statute of limitations.

(The debt was first reported in 1999. The Statute of Limitations in California on this type of debt is 4 years)

There are 3 documented violations listed above each worth $1000 in fines. I would think your company would rather settle this out of court to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

[deseyer 10]

Well Hog.. that is some kinda list... definitely well documented.

[CreditHog 10]

I missed one thing. Getting these collectors names.

I only wrote one down.

They get me worked up and I get carried away. The fun part is taking control of them over the phone. The bad part is they can really screw with you after, and they did.

But I will get them. They will remove the lines or they will remove the lines and pay me in court.

I am serious after I notarize the caller ID I am going right to the small claims office even before the 30 days are up. I can play dirty too!!

[ADSOFT 48]

Boy, you guys are arressive, You guys almost remind of me!!!! I wish there were members like this when I started

You guys are very correct in using the law and GETTING THINGS ON PAPER, One thing I never tried was using ariticles of agencies that have gotten sued for violations by the FDCPA.

These things your are writing about just goes to prove why it is useless to even talk to a CA, get everything on paper. And following up with some paper work that you are willing to take them to court showing that your are not just full of hot air also helps.

Getting that DV letter is most important thing when dealing with CA's, but when dealing with OC'S you have to be carefull, if you get too agressive and the amount is high you might trigger a lawsuit!!!

Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you guys are using the LAW AGRESSIVIVLY and quoting it. There is no reason in trying to be diplomatic with CA's, they are the "scum of the earth and filth of all creation" and you have to get them first before they get you, because their job is to try to get every penny out of you and to upset you.

Go get em, and get the law on your side.

[admin 885]

Excellent! Prime example of how to deal with these guys.

I sent this as an addendum to a DV letter sent via Fed-Ex

Documentation of collection harrassment

In addition your company has violated the FDCPA and the California Rosenthal Act.

If we do not resolve this issue in the next 30 days I will be seeking monetary compensation through small claims court for the following violations.

On the evening of 4/7/2004 I was contacted by your company. I was told that the conversation would be recorded and I asked the collector permission to record as well, he agreed. I have all this recorded. I promptly informed the collector that I disputed the debt but would be willing to pay if your company could produce original AT&T documentation showing me that I owed the debt. The collector informed me that this was impossible and that the debt was too old. I told him if you cannot produce verification then you could not report this debt to the credit bureaus.

I hung up and was called back in 15 minutes by someone claiming to be a supervisor who proceeded to engage me in a verbal confrontation. The supervisor also said there was no way to verify this debt but that I did owe it and it didn’t matter whether your agency had proof or not.

Then within hours the following occurred:

• Collection harassment:

(Your company called me at 6:26 a.m. on 4/8/2004)

FDCPA Section 805. (a)(1)

• Re-aging this debt and reporting it to the credit bureau as a form of debt enforcement

(Also on 4/8/2004 the debt was reported new as of 2/2004 to the Credit Bureaus)

FCRA Section 605 ©

• Inability to produce verification of this debt:

(This is what your agent and supervisor told me on 4/7/2004 as stated above)

FDCPA Section 809 (

• This debt cannot be enforced as it is beyond the statute of limitations.

(The debt was first reported in 1999. The Statute of Limitations in California on this type of debt is 4 years)

There are 3 documented violations listed above each worth $1000 in fines. I would think your company would rather settle this out of court to the satisfaction of all parties involved.