fivetwos Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 What's the reason why it is suggested to use the line "this is not a refusal to pay, but..." in a DV letter? What would change if that was either not included at all or you flat out write that it is a refusal to pay?Thanks folks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 I think the implication is that if you do refuse to pay, then you're backing the OC into a corner where their only recourse is to sue. I don't know if that legit or not. Often, when a CA gets you on the phone, they use the line "oh, then you refuse to pay" as those that had some major significance. Personally, I always took that as just another intimidation line from their script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHateCAs Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 I would pretty much agree with willing. Legally, if you refuse to pay, a CA must stop making contact with you. However, it's also an intimidation tactic on the phone as suggested.I don't recommend using the line "this is not a refusal to pay etc". If you make your DV letters short, sweet and to the point it will not be confused as a refusal to pay/cease communication letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myscoresawful Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I agree with what they both said, but it also gives them the indication that you are open minded about it. It presents you to them as "I'm want to take care of this, one way or another". It simply puts them in a mood to work with you. They deal enough with people who contact them and right off the bat are yelling "this isn't mine and I'm not going to pay it and YOU CAN"T MAKE ME!" .....so a letter that opens up with, "I'm not refusing to pay, I just need to know what this is all about" is something they feel they "might" be able to come to an agreement on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtptute Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Using the "I refuse to pay" from our point of view gives the JDB's and the CA's some rope to hang themselves with. It can mean one of many things, a few being I refuse to pay outright don't darken my doorstep again or it means I refuse to pay the amount they are alleging that you owe them. It also makes them violate the law. Because if you put in your letter a C&D, then they will start calling and harassing saying, what do you mean, you refuse to pay? Hopefully you'd have a recording device going to get them on tape.But the question still remains, why would you pay someone ANY money if YOU don't owe them ANYTHING? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I gotta beleive that CAs and JDBs get like a bazillion letters per day from us debt beats. I'm guessing that the only thing that really gets read is "name and address" so they'll know what record in their database to mark "in dispute".I'm not advocating telling them to FOAD or you'll have the "boys" meet them in the parking lot, but more and more I'm leaning towards the "I dispute this debt. Send me proof or go away" kind of letters. Short, sweet, and says our words for other purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unusualsuspect Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 making the CA prove that indeed you are the debtor. There could be a 100 other people on the world with your name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts