PFD Letter Backfire?

[McLovin]

So I got a letter today in the mail from a JDB. They have agreed to do a PFD for me for a small account. The account has never been verified, but I just want it gone and its a small amount. I want to be sure that I go about paying them and getting them to live up tp their end of the agreement, but I'll address that in a seperate post.

In the letter they sent me they also made mention of four additional accounts that they hold that I "allegedly" owe. None of these additional accounts show up on ANY of my credit reports, nor have I ever recieved a dunning letter in regards to any of them. 2 of them are very near the SOL, and another isn't far behind them. The fourth one still has some time left on it.

Could this letter be contrued as "first contact" concerning these additional debts? Should I expect to see a full dunning letter in the mail for each of them within the next 5 days? And if I do not see such a letter, do I have them up against the wall? In the letter they mention that the intent of the letter is to collect a debt.

Have I woke a sleeping giant? Like I said, they are not reporting as of right now, and frankly as long as theyre not on my CR, I don't care about them. But I want to be ready if they decide to report them suddenly.

[Coltfan1972]

I don't see that as initial contact about your other debts. Their communication was not an attempt to collect a debt (at least according to you) for the other accounts, but just a FYI from them.

You woke up something, but I would not call them a giant. Anytime you pay a past due debt and your credit report changes, that's blood in the water for the sharks (creditors).

They watch your reports and when they see you starting to pay stuff off they want their cut.

Personally, I'd never pay a junk debt buyer. However, if I was going to, I would not do it if I had other accounts out there. You've shown them you have money and you're willing to part with that money on old accounts that they can't prove and likely (like 99.999%) can't prove in court even if they sued you.

I'm not calling you a sucker, I'm just saying the junk debt buyer has probably labeled you as one. The fact is that junk debt buyer is going to try and bleed you dry if you pay them and they have four other accounts of yours.

Can't say your PFD backfired if you pay them and they delete your account. You might just have bigger problems to deal with and then will have to decide if that PFD was/is worth those additional issues.

But no, they are not giants. At least in my book.

On a side note, send them a money order or something that does not disclose where you bank or work.

[McLovin]

I don't see that as initial contact about your other debts. Their communication was not an attempt to collect a debt (at least according to you) for the other accounts, but just a FYI from them.

I appreciate the response and the help!

But, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean here (because of what's in between your parenthesis). I DO think that it is an attempt to collect a debt, on all accounts.

Either way, any pointers on the language in which to word my letter that will accompany the payment? I want the terms to be clear, and that upon them endorsing the check that they agree to and are bound by the terms. This way, if they try to burn me I have every intention of taking them to court and I want to be able to prove my case.

I also do not like succumbing to paying a JDB a dime. It kills me even to spend the $5.75 on them for the CMRRR. In several of my experiences I have been able to remove items with no money by using the law. But in this case, its such a small amount and to me it's worth the price just to have it disappear. Unless they blatantly commit a violation or two, then the game changes.

[Coltfan1972]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean here (because of what's in between your parenthesis). I DO think that it is an attempt to collect a debt, on all accounts.

What I meant was I was basing my answer on what you posted only and did not read anything into your post or make any assumptions.

I understand you think it was an attempt but what I was saying was under the FDCPA I don't think it would meet the definition.

However, looking at the definitions in the FDCPA, again, it actually might. Why don't you take out the personal information and post the letter, word for word. You actually might have an initial communication on your hands, and if so you might have FDCPA violations.

If it is a communication in connection with the collection of a debt and meets the definition of "initial communication" and the letter does not have proper disclaimers, you might have them.

Post the letter and let's see what it actually says.

[antiquedave]

I'd like to see that as well, especially if they identified the creditors and amounts and if the letter has the "this is an attempt to collect a debt" on it.

Why bring them up if you didn't want to collect on them?

[McLovin]

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

McLovin Date

Address

Western USA

Dear Consumer,

As per your request, the amount(s) are listed below:

Date - Client - Principal - Total Due - EBS#

(1)date OC $$ $$ random account numbers

(2)date OC $$ $$ random account numbers

(3)date OC $$ $$ random account numbers

(4)date OC $$ $$ random account numbers

I will accept $X amount of money for account (#4). Please call for arrangements on the other accounts.

This will also be deleted from your credit file

(This last sentence is hand written, and an arrow drawn pointing to account in question, #4)

Packet # XXXXXXX

Thank You,

XXXXXX's SIGNATURE

XXXXXX's Name

Unit manager

This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

JDB's Address

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

That's the letter word for word, with the account numbers, specific names, dollar amounts, etc., edited out.

Edited September 1, 2012 by McLovin

[antiquedave]

"AS PER YOUR REQUEST"

you didn't make a request for the information on the other debts? to me it looks like they are trying to snake around the mini miranda

Since you have never received a dunning letter from them on the other accounts and you have never requested the information on the additional accounts then I would consider that they are trying to get around the mini miranda.

They figure they got a live one on the line and you'll just pony up.

If it were me I think I would wait a week, then send a DV on one of the accounts, and then one a week on the others. If they violate your state laws those violations can stack up x 4 as opposed to the FDCPA. If they have FDCPA violations on all 4 accounts and you were to sue them on it I don't know, they might become bound together under one suit especially if its the same violation.

[McLovin]

You are correct. I did not make a request on the other debts, as I did not even know they existed. I was just trying to get rid of the one debt. I have all of the previous letters and green slips to prove it.

Should I take care of the PFD right now before things could get ugly so that its out of the way, or should I leave it be and try to let it get folded in with the rest of them?

[kutuzov]

It depends on what time you got. If you wanna persue this matter, then don't pay, get a lawyer, or study yourself and sue them. If you feel like is gonna be more of an effort or time consuming for you, and you belive you can deal with it, then pay them. If they put the other 3 accounts or any of those 3 aacounts in your credit then sue them.

It really depends on your time, energy and interest in what to do.

[antiquedave]

You are correct. I did not make a request on the other debts, as I did not even know they existed. I was just trying to get rid of the one debt. I have all of the previous letters and green slips to prove it.

Should I take care of the PFD right now before things could get ugly so that its out of the way, or should I leave it be and try to let it get folded in with the rest of them?

If it were me I would want to know more about where I stand and whether I was looking at any violations on the part of the JDB before I made a decision on paying them for one and leaving 3 out there with the same JDB.

[Flyingifr]

Settle #4 before you sue them for #'s 1-3.

[nascar]

So I got a letter today in the mail from a JDB.

Is the letter from RJM Acquisitions?

[antiquedave]

It seems to me that sending a collection letter with 4 accounts on it is in itself a violation, you really should get a separate dun on each account. That letter informing you on #4 is a dun for the other three that does not include the mini miranda.

This is an old case from 1982 a consent decree where the collector agrees to send separate notices on each debt http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/unreported/Fulton.pdf

still looking for other cases that address sending a dun for multiple accounts

[Coltfan1972]

I think one could twist and turn that into some type of violation. However, I agree with Kutzov. It all depends on how much time and effort you want to put into this. If it's a violation it's moot as far as you're concerned if you're not interested in the fight (which most are not and there is nothing wrong with that).

[Seadragon]

then the ball is in their court for those. It also raises a dispute early which could make them flub up and make a violation. If they haven't contacted you about the others then that would be a violation.

for now DV the other three and keep the other account seperate. OR tell them that If they wish to validate the other three then you are going to need to check into it because you are unfamiliar with the other accounts.

[McLovin]

Well, I have received two more letters now. The first one is pretty much identical to the last letter, except they changed the wording a little bit and now they are insinuating that the account(s) will be deleted once the entire portfolio is paid in full. Still no dunning letter on the other three debts, and still none of those three are on my CR.

Now yesterday I got another letter from them. This one is a little different. Its actually on what I am assuming is their standard collection letter template, (but definitely not a dunning letter). In this letter they mention all four alleged debts that they have conveniently bundled into a packet or portfolio, and then they "suggest" that I mail payments or call to make arrangements.

They're becoming a mild pain in the butt. I was just about to mail them the payment for the original debt in question to do a PFD before I got this recent letter, now I am not so sure.

Might I add that these three accounts are all within weeks of their SOL.

[antiquedave]

If it were me I would have already forwarded everything to a consumer attorney

probably would dv them, let the sol mature and then send a refusal to pay

followed by a summons, or maybe the summons first

[Flyingifr]

In re-reading this I see another interpretation (God bless the Last Sophisticated Consumer standard whgere, if there is any way you can misread something, you do so)

In the letter they sent me they also made mention of four additional accounts that they hold that I "allegedly" owe. None of these additional accounts show up on ANY of my credit reports, nor have I ever recieved a dunning letter in regards to any of them. 2 of them are very near the SOL, and another isn't far behind them. The fourth one still has some time left on it.

Could this letter be contrued as "first contact" concerning these additional debts? Should I expect to see a full dunning letter in the mail for each of them within the next 5 days? And if I do not see such a letter, do I have them up against the wall? In the letter they mention that the intent of the letter is to collect a debt.

So... they want to settle on account "A" and in the letter mention accounts "B", "C" and "D" but they don't specifically SAY they want to collect on them.

The fact that they are a collection agency and they mentioned B, C and D would lead me (the village idiot) to believe they want to get paid on them also - otherwise why mention them? Therefore that letter is initial communication for B, C and D and without the mini-Miranda and VOD warnings is a FDCPA violation as to B, C and D.

Or are you supposed to think they are saying "please pay A but not B, C or D"?

[McLovin]

Got a letter from JDB today. This one came on their standard letterhead. This time they itemize each account. Still no dunning letter on the three additional accounts, or mention of the 30 day validation period. Still not showing up on CR yet either.

And get this...the date of the letter is one day before the SOL on the soonest debt to go zombie....