bored7one4

DV or dispute with bureau new collections that just reported on my credit report?

Recommended Posts

@jared_strauss

 


 

  • "Sending a debt validation letter on valid debts invites lawsuits." 

 
I believe the potential reactions that I have elaborated on in this thread explain how that statement is in fact true. How could you say that it doesn't invite them with what I have presented here? Do you deny that these reactions aren't possible?

 

 

 

I notice that you stated "possible" and "potential" reactions.   Possible/potential reactions are not a given.

 

I have never stated that it wasn't possible.  What I have stated is that you have made a blanket statement which implies that a DV request always invites lawsuits.  That most certainly is not the case.

 

 


 

  • "Requesting validation on valid debts is one of the stupidest things you could do."

 
It is, for all of the reasons I have thoroughly explained in this thread. The risk/reward is not worth it for the consumer who's ultimate goal is to financially resolve their debts.

 

 

 

If one is dealing with a CA who's collecting for an OC, it's possible to contact the OC and confirm the CA's involvement.  This is not always possible when a JDB has purchased an account.

 

A consumer has the right to know that an amount claimed by a JDB is valid.  He has the right to know if the JDB can provide documentation to verify that amount. 

 

If the amount is higher than the original amount, the consumer has the right to know why there's a difference.  That would be part of verifying the amount claimed.

 

What's risky is paying a JDB without requesting that the collector verify anything.

 

 


 

  • "Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement."

 
Here is a recent post where that is exactly what's happening. Please see - http://www.creditinf...est-now-served/

 

 

 

I suggest you reread that thread.  There is no evidence that the poster's DV resulted in the lawsuit.  In addition, neither Midland nor their attorney responded to the poster's requests.  If she can prove she sent the requests, she could possible have an FDCPA claim against both parties.

 

In fact, if she had been aware of the summons and had answered the complaint, she would have had an FDCPA counterclaim.

 


That is absolutely what I'm saying. The ones that resulted in default judgments were slated to be sued anyway.

 

One of my questions was "Are you saying that a DV request made CACH more likely to sue?"

 

 

You just admitted that there were accounts for which CACH was going to sue anyway.  So, in other words, a DV request in those cases would not have invited a lawsuit.   They would not have made CACH more likely to sue because the decision had already been made.

 

Since a consumer has no way of knowing whether his account is part of that 5% that's referred to the legal department, he should just assume it is and that he's going to be sued anyway?   If that's the case, a DV wouldn't hurt because a lawsuit's coming.

 

Or should he assume his account is part of the 95%, and not send a DV request because it would invite a lawsuit?  

 

You're suggesting that a DV request is risky and stupid because a consumer might be part of the 95% or because a JDB might not have yet decided to sue. 

 


 

Which brings me to my point that when you request the validation, you're assisting in making this decision for the collector.

 

The account comes to an impasse in that situation. If they have a monthly quota, why wouldn't they be more inclined to make that account part of their 20 so they could make room for another account that may pay?

 

 

You have admitted that some accounts were scheduled for suit no matter what.  CACH made that decision with no DV being received.  Therefore, nothing had been doen to assist the collector in making his decision.  Suits were filed on those accounts even though no documentation had been acquired in order to satisfy a DV request.

 

Again, you are suggesting that consumers not send a DV request based upon the hope that they are not part of the 5%.

 


 

Remember, a very small percentage of people send a debt validation request (1 -  3%) in the first place.

 

If 100% of judgments were acquired by way of default then your point would make sense. But they're not.

 

 

Just for the sake of debate, let's say that those 1 - 3% of consumers who requested debt validation were all part of the default judgment group.

 

Based upon your statistics, 97 - 99% of the cases filed that resulted in a default judgment had nothing to do with a DV request.  They were not filed because the consumers had requested validation and, therefore, helped the collector make the decision to file suit.  Since no DV had been requested, the collector had not already ordered documentation.  In 97 - 99% of the cases, the collector simply decided to sue.

 

Your own statistics do not prove that a DV request will invite a lawsuit.   All they prove is that if a JDB is going to sue, they're going to sue.

 


I think it's reckless to broadly advise people to send a debt validation letter on a valid debt without becoming familiar with their goals and disclosing these possible reactions.

 

You are the one who has made broad statements. 

 

I already stated that I believe a consumer should have all the information possible in order to make an informed decision.  I made that statement after disagreeing with your blanket statements.  At first, you were not including the words "possible" and "potential". 

 

In post #64, you stated you still believe those blanket statements.  That's fine if you believe them, but they are merely your opinion.  That's what you leave out.  You state them as though they're incontrovertible fact. 

 

It is not fact that a JDB will sue as the result of a DV request.  It's might be a possiblity, but it's not a fact. 

 

What is reckless is to make your statements when you've just shown that the vast majority of lawsuits filed had nothing to do with a DV request.  What is reckless is to tell a consumer they shouldn't request validation but should keep their fingers crossed in the hope that their account isn't one of the 5% that have supposedly been referred to a legal department.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I say it's not intelligent for the consumer to invite them to get what's needed when they may not even have it to begin with.

 

Would you agree that if they sued without the documentation that that's to the consumers benefit because the consumer could ask for dismissal with prejudice and potentially never have to deal with again?

 

Why potentially arm the JDB when they have demonstrated that consumers may be able to defend themselves with such a simple defense?

 

It's foolish to do so.   

 

Well, now you are just trying to change the subject.  These were your words:  "Midland is a fairly agressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue IF THEY CAN VALIDATE YOUR DEBT AND IF YOU FAIL TO ARRIVE AT A TIMELY ARRANGEMENT." (Emphasis mine.)

 

From what the court said, you are obviously wrong about Midland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bored7one4

 

 

A DV request is sent within 30 days of a CA's or JDB's first communication that includes the 30 day validation notice.  If you send your request more than 30 days after receiving that notice, they do not have to validate the debt and can continue collection efforts.

 

Also, if you send a timely DV request, they either have to validate in order to continue collecting, or they can choose to not validate and simply cease collection efforts.

so once the OC via the CA have sent you response to your dV letter, what is the re-course.  A C&D to the OC or a pay for delete to OC; it seems the OC after chargeoff is still reporting and there is no way of stopping them. The CA no longer is involved in the collections, however, the OC continues reporting on the Chargedoff account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so once the OC via the CA have sent you response to your dV letter, what is the re-course.  A C&D to the OC or a pay for delete to OC; it seems the OC after chargeoff is still reporting and there is no way of stopping them. The CA no longer is involved in the collections, however, the OC continues reporting on the Chargedoff account.

You can offer to pay the OC - but I doubt if they will agree to remove the listing or update to any thing less than settled.  What is a good amount to start at?  30%.  

 

If they take the settlement, there should be no collections on your credit report at all.  

 

If the OC won't settle, there must be a new collection agency - you can find out by calling the OC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not to the consumer's benefit to be subjected to a lengthly court procedure when the JDB has insufficient proof to bring the case in the first place.  That smacks of abuse.  

 

Hi guys, 

 

My apologies for the delayed response. There is never enough time in the day. :)

 

You say - "the JDB has insufficient proof to bring the case in the first place"

 

That's a major assumption isn't it? 

 

Also, please elaborate on what happens as it "drags on for months." What is required of the consumer during this time? How involved are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

 

 

I notice that you stated "possible" and "potential" reactions.   Possible/potential reactions are not a given.

 

I have never stated that it wasn't possible.  What I have stated is that you have made a blanket statement which implies that a DV request always invites lawsuits.  That most certainly is not the case.

 

 
I've been saying "possible" the entire time. I've never once said that sending a debt validation letter WILL get you sued. I've been stating that it increases the probability and therefore "invites" them.
 
And I'm glad you agree because that leads to my ENTIRE POINT. These possibilities should be disclosed to the people that are advised to send these letters.   
 
As I stated previously - 
 
"Most of what I laid out in this exchange is logic and common sense based. And it's geared towards the consumer who doesn't want to potentially put themselves in an adversarial situation with their creditors.
 
Not everybody wants to get sued.  
 
I'm just asking that you guys debate about explaining these possible reactions to people when you encourage sending a debt validation or cease and desist letter. Just so they fully understand what they may be getting themselves into.
 
That's my only agenda." 
 
   

If one is dealing with a CA who's collecting for an OC, it's possible to contact the OC and confirm the CA's involvement.  This is not always possible when a JDB has purchased an account.

 
A consumer has the right to know that an amount claimed by a JDB is valid.  He has the right to know if the JDB can provide documentation to verify that amount. 
 
If the amount is higher than the original amount, the consumer has the right to know why there's a difference.  That would be part of verifying the amount claimed.
 
What's risky is paying a JDB without requesting that the collector verify anything.

 

 
You're right, about 1% of the time there may be a chink in the chain of title due to a company going out a business or something. 
 
But that shouldn't deter someone from executing their more safe and reliable alternative of calling the original creditor to confirm an agencies involvement first. 
 
I agree with the balance piece. Again, the more safe alternative would be to make the request for a written itemization verbally. I would personally only make this request in writing in the event that they didn't comply with the verbal request. 
 
Remember, the mantra behind this is to stay off their radar and remain in the "herd."
 
Furthermore, if a consumer's intent is to settle, that settlement requires cooperation. If you want to enhance that cooperation then it is in a consumer's best interest to remain non-adversarial. 
 
By being adversarial you create an unnecessary negative emotion that stunts cooperation. People are already struggling enough and they don't need to make their situation more complicated.
 
For a consumer who desires resolution, a consumers' goal should be to avoid adversarial situations so they make their resolution as simple and as obtainable as possible. 
 
After all, the amount you settle for is generally dictated by the collector and then by the creditor's limitations. 
 
Entering into an adversarial situation with the individual that you ultimately rely upon for their cooperation is counter productive for the consumer. 
 
Just like with most anything in life, you get more with sugar than you do with vinegar. 
 
 

I suggest you reread that thread.  There is no evidence that the poster's DV resulted in the lawsuit.  In addition, neither Midland nor their attorney responded to the poster's requests.  If she can prove she sent the requests, she could possible have an FDCPA claim against both parties.

 
In fact, if she had been aware of the summons and had answered the complaint, she would have had an FDCPA counterclaim.

 

 
You can't say that it didn't either. That argument goes both ways. And it leads me back to my entire point: these possibilities should be disclosed. 
 
The violation you speak of is irrelevant to the point that these reactions are possible. 
 
 

One of my questions was "Are you saying that a DV request made CACH more likely to sue?"

 

You just admitted that there were accounts for which CACH was going to sue anyway.  So, in other words, a DV request in those cases would not have invited a lawsuit.   They would not have made CACH more likely to sue because the decision had already been made.

 

Since a consumer has no way of knowing whether his account is part of that 5% that's referred to the legal department, he should just assume it is and that he's going to be sued anyway?   If that's the case, a DV wouldn't hurt because a lawsuit's coming.

 

Or should he assume his account is part of the 95%, and not send a DV request because it would invite a lawsuit?  

 

You're suggesting that a DV request is risky and stupid because a consumer might be part of the 95% or because a JDB might not have yet decided to sue.

 

You have admitted that some accounts were scheduled for suit no matter what.  CACH made that decision with no DV being received.  Therefore, nothing had been doen to assist the collector in making his decision.  Suits were filed on those accounts even though no documentation had been acquired in order to satisfy a DV request.

 

Again, you are suggesting that consumers not send a DV request based upon the hope that they are not part of the 5%.

 

Just for the sake of debate, let's say that those 1 - 3% of consumers who requested debt validation were all part of the default judgment group.

 

Based upon your statistics, 97 - 99% of the cases filed that resulted in a default judgment had nothing to do with a DV request.  They were not filed because the consumers had requested validation and, therefore, helped the collector make the decision to file suit.  Since no DV had been requested, the collector had not already ordered documentation.  In 97 - 99% of the cases, the collector simply decided to sue.

 

Your own statistics do not prove that a DV request will invite a lawsuit.  All they prove is that if a JDB is going to sue, they're going to sue.

 

 

 

You're missing the point completely here. 

 

My entire point of entering into this debate was to educate you guys about the possible reactions that are created when sending debt validation (on valid debts) and cease and desist letters. So you, in turn, could pass that information on to others when you're suggesting to send these types of letters. 
 
Collectors are trained to identify assets. Where I've worked, the main criteria for an account to qualify as part of the "20" was current employment, home ownership (this is more situational now), active checking or savings accounts, high concentration of good credit, and accounts that have had previous settlements or paid charge-offs. 
 
Please understand, I the collector am given the choice of which "20" I select, providing that they meet one of these requirements.
 
Since as a collector I make the majority of my income via bonuses and commissions, I'm not going to pick an account that I believe will pay. 
 
My main baseline for selecting these "20" accounts is my previous communication. 
 
So if I have an account for a consumer who has really good credit that I've never spoken with before, I'm going to hold on to that account for as long as I can because once I get them on the phone they will have a high probability to pay. 
 
Whereas if I have an account where I received a validation letter, spent the time to order it, sent it, and then failed to arrive to arrangement on it, I'm more inclined to include that account into my "20" because it has demonstrated that it has a low probability to pay.  
 
Again, the account comes to an impasse and that helps me arrive to a conclusion for the account.
 
And since the account is at an impasse and I already possess some documentation due to the debt validation letter it makes additional sense to include it as part my "20". 
 
Furthermore, the point you should be focusing on (I know, it's not convenient for your position on this issue) is that 10% of judgments are entered when the consumer does fight it. 
 
And please don't confuse that statistic. It's not saying that 10% of collection suits that are fought are awarded judgments. It's saying that 10% of all judgments that are awarded are fought. 
 
I don't believe any of us can truly say what percentage of collection suits that are fought are successfully defended. 
 
But it appears to me that 10% of all collection judgments that are awarded potentially required additional documentation to substantiate the claim in order to be victorious. 
 
Which flies in the face of the common assertion on this site that the documentation is never or rarely available.
  
Which to me, creates even greater cause to disclose this information when making the recommendation. 
 

I hold out great hope that you can guys can digest this information in an unemotional way so you can realize that these "POSSIBILITIES" SHOULD BE DISCLOSED WHEN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION.

 

I would expect that you guys would already know that consumers are lost when it comes to how to deal with their debt and they DEPEND and RELY on information that is not only consistent with their goals but information that will ultimately help them from making their situation potentially even worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now you are just trying to change the subject.  These were your words:  "Midland is a fairly agressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue IF THEY CAN VALIDATE YOUR DEBT AND IF YOU FAIL TO ARRIVE AT A TIMELY ARRANGEMENT." (Emphasis mine.)

 

From what the court said, you are obviously wrong about Midland.

 

I'm not changing anything. 

 

Do you think that Midland sues every account that they have? 

 

Because that would be the only way your reply makes any sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that lengthy process to the consumers benefit? It buys them time which eats into the margins of the collector when you consider the time-value.   

 

@jared_strauss

 

The JDB may have to purchase some documentation from the OC, but how much of their margin is eaten away depends on how much documentation they purchase.  You seem to be assuming that all JDBs purchase loads of documentation. That's not the case.

This is especially true in courts where judges are require very little from JDBs to prove their cases.  Part of that is based upon precedent and another part is based on the "good ol' boy system".

How much of their potential profit they lose is also dependant on their agreement with their attorney.  Are they paying him by the hour, or do they pay him a fixed fee per case?

Furthermore, it gives the consumer time to save up the money necessary to resolve it if they desire to do so.

Yes, the process can buy the consumer more time if he wishes to save money to resolve issue, but there is no guarantee that the process makes the JDB more willing to settle for less.  This is especially the case if the JDB knows they're going to win due to that good ol' boy system.

Why agree to settle for less if they're pretty sure the judge is going to rule in their favor, and the consumer's wages can be garnished for the full amount?

 

 

You say - "the JDB has insufficient proof to bring the case in the first place"

 

That's a major assumption isn't it?

 

Also, please elaborate on what happens as it "drags on for months." What is required of the consumer during this time? How involved are they?

 

Hopefully, Admin  doesn't mind my jumping in here.

It's not a major assumption.  In fact, it's actually based upon your own statistics.  You said that only 1 -3% of consumers request validation and that sending a DV arms the JDB.

So, as I suggested before, hypothesizing that the 1 - 3% of consumers that request DV are in 100% of the default judgment cases, 97 - 99% of cases filed were filed without the JDB having received a DV.  If they haven't received a DV, they haven't armed themselves by requesting more documentation.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that JDBs file suit without the necessary documentation needed to prove their cases already in their grubby little hands.

 

I also can't believe you have to ask "Also, please elaborate on what happens as it "drags on for months." What is required of the consumer during this time? How involved are they?"

 

Do you really not know the answers?

 

 

I've been saying "possible" the entire time. I've never once said that sending a debt validation letter WILL get you sued. I've been stating that it increases the probability and therefore "invites" them.

 

"[T]he most stupid thing you can do" leaves no room for probability.  Couple that with your statement about inviting lawsuits, and what do you think a consumer will assume?

Your exact statement was "Sending a debt validation letter on valid debts invites lawsuits."

What do you consider a "valid" debt?  By valid, do you mean that the consumer owes the debt and the balance is accurate?

You later added "within the SOL", but you didn't include that phrase when you first appeared, did you?

And I'm glad you agree because that leads to my ENTIRE POINT. These possibilities should be disclosed to the people that are advised to send these letters.

 

No, we are not going to tell posters that a DV will invite a lawsuit because there's no proof to support it.  You've made your statements based upon work with one debt buyer and also admitting that only 5% of all accounts were referred to the legal department.  

How many of those accounts ended in lawsuits?  In what percentage of the 5% had consumers requested validation?  What percentage of the 95% of accounts that were not referred to the legal department still within the SOL?  In what percentage of THAT percentage had consumers requested validation.

Unless you know the numbers, you haven't supported your claims.

 

"Most of what I laid out in this exchange is logic and common sense based. And it's geared towards the consumer who doesn't want to potentially put themselves in an adversarial situation with their creditors.

 

No, it's based upon your opinion from having worked with one JDB and now based upon the fact that you want to "help" people resolve their debts.

 

I agree with the balance piece. Again, the more safe alternative would be to make the request for a written itemization verbally. I would personally only make this request in writing in the event that they didn't comply with the verbal request.

 

What verbal request?

 

 

You can't say that it didn't either. That argument goes both ways. And it leads me back to my entire point: these possibilities should be disclosed.

 

I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not the one claiming DVs invite lawsuits.  I merely suggest people take advantage of the rights afforded them by law.

In the referenced case, it doesn't matter if the JDB sued as a result of her DV.  The point is that they didn't follow the law, and she had an FDCPA counterclaim.  Therefore, I've proven that DVs can be useful for more than just validating a debt.

 

 

The violation you speak of is irrelevant to the point that these reactions are possible.

 

Irrelevant?  Really?  Tell that to consumers whose cases have been dismissed because they had an FDCPA counterclaim.  Tell it to the consumers who filed an FDCPA lawsuit.

 

 

You're missing the point completely here.

 

My entire point of entering into this debate was to educate you guys about the possible reactions that are created when sending debt validation (on valid debts) and cease and desist letters. So you, in turn, could pass that information on to others when you're suggesting to send these types of letters.

 

Sir, I'm not missing anything.  

I have no problem with opposing points of view as long as the person opposing another's opinion either backs up his opposition with facts or specifies that his opposing opinion is merely his opinion.  I believe I pointed that out much earlier in this debate.

You are the one who has made statements that would lead a consumer to believe they should not request validation of a "valid" debt.  You have not supported your statements with facts.  

Your "logic" is based upon a position and experience with one JDB and an alleged percentage of accounts referred to a legal department.  

My opinion regarding this issue and the opinions of many others on this site are based upon our experiences dealing with more than one CA and JDB along with our research of the FDCPA and supporting precedent.

 

 

It also potentially makes the collector more likely to settle for less since it's creating a lot of additional work for them.

 

The above statement is a quite a contradiction from a previous claim you've asserted.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not changing anything. 

 

Do you think that Midland sues every account that they have? 

 

Because that would be the only way your reply makes any sense. 

 

It is your reply that makes no sense because you keep running away from your original statement.  Obviously from what the court said, Midland will sue whether or not they can validate your debt,  directly contrary to what you said.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to know they get a written letter.  

 

And also that you're a debt settlement guy.   :-)  That taints your answers somewhat.

 

 

Admin, 

 

I'd like to dig in on this comment a bit. I'm a debt settlement guy that limits my service to people who have a financial resource to settle all of their delinquent debt at the same time.

 

Which means that my service won't be an option for approximately 90% of people who are behind on their debt. 

 

Which means my statements are not tainted in any way. 

 

But I have a question for you...

 

How are you compensated? Do you generate revenue from encouraging consumers to send debt validation letters on valid debts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm done with this agrument. You've used all the magic words that identifies you, in my mind, as a debt fixer / collection agency.

 

"insolvency", "enrolled debt", "borrow from your relatives, pension funds, etc.",  "don't bother to validate, it will get you sued", "avoid BK", "credit counseling", "settlement advisor".

 

All of the half truths and misrepresentations that collection agencies use to intimidate the debtors they call.

 

As for your clients...I do apologize...I would rephrase my description of them to be those who were taken in by your smooth spiel and friendly banter.  Whether or not they knew up front what you were doing I cannot possibly know.

 

What's a half truth and misrepresentative? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin, 

 

.....encouraging consumers to send debt validation letters on valid debts? 

Jared, being a debt fixer / CA, you are starting with the assumption that every letter someone receives from a CA refers to a "valid debt", because CAs never make mistakes.

 

The whole purpose of a DV is to determine if the CA has the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to collect in that particular state.  In other words, it is the purpose of a debt validation letter to establish whether or not its a "valid debt".

 

As I said before, I know you owe Citibank for a credit card debt.  I'm collecting.  Are you going to just send me the money, or do want some verification of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jared, being a debt fixer / CA, you are starting with the assumption that every letter someone receives from a CA refers to a "valid debt", because CAs never make mistakes.

 

 

I'm not making that assumption. I am being specific. If a consumer doesn't believe the debt is valid they SHOULD send a debt validation letter. 

 

My biggest issue and why I decided to post here to begin with is that you guys commonly don't even ask WHAT THE CONSUMERS GOALS ARE or WHETHER OR NOT THEY THEY THINK THE DEBT IS VALID. 

 

 

The whole purpose of a DV is to determine if the CA has the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to collect in that particular state.  In other words, it is the purpose of a debt validation letter to establish whether or not its a "valid debt".

 

Then start asking these people that post here for help about their goals and whether or not they feel the debt is valid before making the suggestion of sending one...

 

 

As I said before, I know you owe Citibank for a credit card debt.  I'm collecting.  Are you going to just send me the money, or do want some verification of that?

 

Again, this can be verified by calling Citibank and confirming the collection agencies involvement. It's a much safer alternative for the consumer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your reply that makes no sense because you keep running away from your original statement.  Obviously from what the court said, Midland will sue whether or not they can validate your debt,  directly contrary to what you said.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

I'm interpreting your statement as you saying that Midland will sue on all of their accounts. Is that what you're saying? 

 

And regardless if they do or don't my point is: how is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 

Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, this can be verified by calling Citibank and confirming the collection agencies involvement. It's a much safer alternative for the consumer...

 

I disagree.  "If its not in writing, it didn't happen".  The only SAFE way to verify a debt is with a DV letter sent CMRRR to the CA within 30 days of "first contact".  If it turns out that the CA screwed up, you have documented proof which will stand up in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  "If its not in writing, it didn't happen".  The only SAFE way to verify a debt is with a DV letter sent CMRRR to the CA within 30 days of "first contact".  If it turns out that the CA screwed up, you have documented proof which will stand up in court.

 

What didn't happen? All one is doing in this situation is calling their original creditor to verify that they hired said collection agency to collect the debt.

 

I agree that "if it's not in writing it didn't happen" for agreements and such, but to simply verify who is servicing the account: that is a very simple thing my friend. 

 

So let me get this straight.... 

 

Do you believe that sending a debt validation letter on a valid debt could be construed as adversarial by the collection agency or JDB?  

 

Do you believe that the collection agency will be as cooperative if they feel like they're dealing with someone that is making their job more complicated than it should be?

 

Do you think if the consumer desires to financially resolve their account that they're better off creating these emotions?

 

Or do you think that a consumer is more likely to receive their desired cooperation by being cooperative themselves?  

 

Remember, once an account is charged off anything outside of the full balance being immediately due is a concession on the collection agency's or JDB's part. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had many posts where people receive envelopes from CAs addressed to them, but containing letters regarding other people's debts, or even letters pertaining to debts that never existed. 

 

Calling the OC will only verify that your name is on the list of names sent to the CA...or, more correctly, since most OCs use the "punch in your account number using your touch tone phone" system, and then automatically transfer you to the CA, you have no way of knowing if either has correct records.  Plus, it gets you subjected to the "polite" conversation that CAs use to intimidate the "least sophisticated consumer".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe that sending a debt validation letter on a valid debt could be construed as adversarial by the collection agency or JDB?  

 

Do you believe that the collection agency will be as cooperative if they feel like they're dealing with someone that is making their job more complicated than it should be?

 

Do you think if the consumer desires to financially resolve their account that they're better off creating these emotions?

 

Or do you think that a consumer is more likely to receive their desired cooperation by being cooperative themselves?  

 

Remember, once an account is charged off anything outside of the full balance being immediately due is a concession on the collection agency's or JDB's part. 

 

Let me chime in here, I challenged a JDB with a DV and they continued to pursue collections without validating.  After filing a complaint with both the FTC and my state's AG I received an apology from the OC and a letter stating that because of my communication with the AG and FTC they were zeroing out the account and were informing the JDB to remove any negative entries on my CR and then the JDB followed up with an apology stating they were closing the account as satisfied.   

 

I have a friend who was telling me about working as a debt collector in CT.  He said it was the most horrendous position he had ever held.  He said he was working beside ex-cons and other forms of degenerates who would stoop so low when on the phone he couldn't understand how they slept at night.  His tenure lasted 6 months.  So do you think that I should be concerned about making a positive impression on those.  And do you think that if I roll over and accept what crumbs that may be thrown my way that it will help reduce my settlement with them.  Also, if I had the 50-60% of the total bill, that I couldn't call and negotiate a satisfactory settlement with the OC before hand thereby avoiding talking and dealing with someone who could care less about my plight.  

 

Checking your posts on the web gave me a better understanding of your business.   Yes, you could probably claim a high completion rate and brag about satisfied customers but according to your requirements you only take on customers who are well-heeled and have the money to settle and who also have a lot to lose if they don't get relief.  Take on a few who have lost their jobs, have health issues that make it so they can't work or get work, had their house foreclosed on or have 50k+ debt without having a dime in savings or nothing left to give to the blood sucking financial establishments.   Get some relief to the seniors who are paying 29.9% interest for their groceries and can't afford vacations since they are being buried by taxes and horrendously high medical bills and co-pays.   Go ahead take on those 5-10% of the cream of the crop and try not to pull the rug out from under us who are trying our best to deal with the debt that we acquired through mis-management or misfortune.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had many posts where people receive envelopes from CAs addressed to them, but containing letters regarding other people's debts, or even letters pertaining to debts that never existed. 

 

Calling the OC will only verify that your name is on the list of names sent to the CA...or, more correctly, since most OCs use the "punch in your account number using your touch tone phone" system, and then automatically transfer you to the CA, you have no way of knowing if either has correct records.  Plus, it gets you subjected to the "polite" conversation that CAs use to intimidate the "least sophisticated consumer".

 

Willing, in the examples you have given it would appear that the debt wouldn't be valid, wouldn't it? 

 

In respect to the automated transfer situation: call customer service instead of the recovery department. 

 

On a side note: I just spent a ridiculous amount of time responding to BV80 but it didn't post for some reason. Can you check to see if it can be retrieved? Thanks! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me chime in here, I challenged a JDB with a DV and they continued to pursue collections without validating.  After filing a complaint with both the FTC and my state's AG I received an apology from the OC and a letter stating that because of my communication with the AG and FTC they were zeroing out the account and were informing the JDB to remove any negative entries on my CR and then the JDB followed up with an apology stating they were closing the account as satisfied.   

 

I have a friend who was telling me about working as a debt collector in CT.  He said it was the most horrendous position he had ever held.  He said he was working beside ex-cons and other forms of degenerates who would stoop so low when on the phone he couldn't understand how they slept at night.  His tenure lasted 6 months.  So do you think that I should be concerned about making a positive impression on those.  And do you think that if I roll over and accept what crumbs that may be thrown my way that it will help reduce my settlement with them.  Also, if I had the 50-60% of the total bill, that I couldn't call and negotiate a satisfactory settlement with the OC before hand thereby avoiding talking and dealing with someone who could care less about my plight.  

 

Checking your posts on the web gave me a better understanding of your business.   Yes, you could probably claim a high completion rate and brag about satisfied customers but according to your requirements you only take on customers who are well-heeled and have the money to settle and who also have a lot to lose if they don't get relief.  Take on a few who have lost their jobs, have health issues that make it so they can't work or get work, had their house foreclosed on or have 50k+ debt without having a dime in savings or nothing left to give to the blood sucking financial establishments.   Get some relief to the seniors who are paying 29.9% interest for their groceries and can't afford vacations since they are being buried by taxes and horrendously high medical bills and co-pays.   Go ahead take on those 5-10% of the cream of the crop and try not to pull the rug out from under us who are trying our best to deal with the debt that we acquired through mis-management or misfortune.

 

 

Zelph,  

 

My issue is that people are being advised to send these letters on valid debts without the consideration of their goals and without the disclosure of what could go wrong.

 

To each their own in regard to sending one. I just think people should be educated appropriately in tandem with the advice. Do you disagree with that? 

 

In respect to my business model: do you think I would limit my services if I felt it wasn't necessary? I give a crap about making sure that I actually do what people hire me for. And the only way to reliably do that is to limit my services the way I have.

 

In respect to your examples: I suggest they look into their Chapter 7 bankruptcy options.

 

Based on your examples, any option beyond that would be a pipe dream wouldn't it?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Willing, in the examples you have given it would appear that the debt wouldn't be valid, wouldn't it? 

What examples are you talking about?

 

In respect to the automated transfer situation: call customer service instead of the recovery department. 

You aren't given the choice in many cases.  The system is automated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zelph,  

 

 

In respect to your examples: I suggest they look into their Chapter 7 bankruptcy options.

 

Based on your examples, any option beyond that would be a pipe dream wouldn't it?  

Advising people to do a BK is not particularly helpful when there are many other options available.  BK should always be the last resort.  There are other options that aren't a "pipe dream".

 

 

 

My issue is that people are being advised to send these letters on valid debts without the consideration of their goals and without the disclosure of what could go wrong.

 

To each their own in regard to sending one. I just think people should be educated appropriately in tandem with the advice. Do you disagree with that? 

 

But what you're saying is incorrect.  Sending a DV letter doesn't increase the chances of being sued or lessen the chances of a debt settlement later. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What examples are you talking about?

 

You aren't given the choice in many cases.  The system is automated. 

 

"We have had many posts where people receive envelopes from CAs addressed to them, but containing letters regarding other people's debts, or even letters pertaining to debts that never existed. 

"

 

When calling customer service rather than recovery, just hit zero or pound a few times instead of entering the account number and you'll generally circumvent that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have had many posts where people receive envelopes from CAs addressed to them, but containing letters regarding other people's debts, or even letters pertaining to debts that never existed."

So those debts are invalid and a DV letter should definitely be sent.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advising people to do a BK is not particularly helpful when there are many other options available.  BK should always be the last resort.  There are other options that aren't a "pipe dream".

 

The last resort? Really? Why do you say that? 

 

What other options are there for the people who are in a situation like Zelph described? 

 

 

But what you're saying is incorrect.  Sending a DV letter doesn't increase the chances of being sued or lessen the chances of a debt settlement late. 

 

So you're saying that the potential reactions I have elaborated on aren't possible? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.