Jump to content

CA is fishing and geting on my last nerve


cajun_duck
 Share

Recommended Posts

First of all, they started with the, "call us by such and such a time to make payment arrangements."  I asked them to send me a list of all of these accounts and the dates they were reported it on.  All I received is a list of accounts and amounts due, no dates or anything.  One of these is listed as "other debts."  These are all medical and some go back a ways.  Well, today I received a letter saying that the verified my employment.  I hope this is just them trying to scare me.  I am going to send them a validation letter soon and find out.  But they call all day and it is getting on my nerves.  It took 3 times for me to tell them to stop calling me at work, they would always hang up before I had the chance or would cut me off before I can ask and then hang up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to understand, verbal statements to them do not hold water. If it's not in writing, it never happened. That is our favorite saying here. You must within 30 days tell them in a DV letter to stop calling. It has now come to light per one of our member attorneys that telling them all cal are inconvenient does not hold a lot of weight either, though you can try and they may or may not stop. Based on what he said, you may not have a FDCPA violation if they continue. In other words, you can try....it's a crap shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Scumbag &Scumbag LLC:

 

I received the information you provided.  I am informing you that this information does not establish a debt that I might owe, or might owe to you.  The information establishing that I owe a debt to you needs to be provided within 30 days, or I will consider the matter closed and not owing any debt and not owing to you.

 

Send it CMRRR.  Do all communication with them in writing, only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did the "Dear Scumbag & Scumbag" letter come from?  

It was made up to be an example.  The "Scumbag & Scumbag" should be the obvious clue.  It mimics debt collectors saying things like "if you do not dispute within 30 days we will assume it to be valid" (there being no such requirement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made up to be an example.  The "Scumbag & Scumbag" should be the obvious clue.  It mimics debt collectors saying things like "if you do not dispute within 30 days we will assume it to be valid" (there being no such requirement).

 

Ok, just as long as posters realize that such a letter would not eliminate a debt.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made up to be an example.  The "Scumbag & Scumbag" should be the obvious clue.  It mimics debt collectors saying things like "if you do not dispute within 30 days we will assume it to be valid" (there being no such requirement).

 

That's part of the required language in 1692g:

 

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's part of the required language in 1692g:

 

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

 

And so it's turned around as part of the Scumbag & Scumbag letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so it's turned around as part of the Scumbag & Scumbag letter.

 

That's fine as long as the consumer realizes that the law allows the CA to assume the debt is valid but that the "scumbag" letter does not allow the consumer to assume the debt is not owed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine as long as the consumer realizes that the law allows the CA to assume the debt is valid but that the "scumbag" letter does not allow the consumer to assume the debt is not owed.

 

The letter is merely a statement.  The consumer can make any assumption they wish.  The law does not disallow it.

 

However, a reasonable and prudent basis for making an assumption that the debt is not owed is the lack of supporting evidence from the party claiming the debt is owed.  People assume debts are not valid until they see evidence or proof otherwise.  The letter would just be giving the debt collector a timed opportunity to provide that evidence or proof before the consumer makes a decision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter is merely a statement.  The consumer can make any assumption they wish.  The law does not disallow it.

 

That's true.  The law doesn't disallow it.  I guess I should have stated "as long as the consumer does not believe that just by stating the matter is closed and the debt is not owed and not owed to the CA" makes it so.

 

 

However, a reasonable and prudent basis for making an assumption that the debt is not owed is the lack of supporting evidence from the party claiming the debt is owed.  People assume debts are not valid until they see evidence or proof otherwise.  The letter would just be giving the debt collector a timed opportunity to provide that evidence or proof before the consumer makes a decision.

 

And we know that not much evidence is required for validation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made up to be an example.  The "Scumbag & Scumbag" should be the obvious clue.  It mimics debt collectors saying things like "if you do not dispute within 30 days we will assume it to be valid" (there being no such requirement).

As I was trained in my 26 years years in the Marines, an assumption is the mother of all f%@# ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.