To DV or Not

[jumbod]

I will try and be complete as possible in this post. I recently received dunning letter from a CA for debt that about 5 months old. My perception is that the CA is working on assignment for the OC. The debt still shows up on my CR from the OC and there is no separate entry on the CR for the CA. As soon as I got the letter from the CA I sent a limited contact letter asking them to only contact me via mail. (Whether this works I don't know but we shall see.)

My question is whether or not I should send them a DV letter. I've read on the internet that if you DV a CA on assignment that this means they will sue quickly (why, I don't know; that's just what I have read). Suing isn't the worst thing that can happen because I really don't have anything they can take. But I'd rather not deal with the hassle right now if I can avoid it.

[splinter]

Hi jumbod, CAs aren't allowed to place negative entries on your credit report. Only OCs can do that, because CAs work for the OCs and they don't own the account. However, I've seen on my credit report hard pulls from CAs that have the comment, something like, inquiry for collection purposes--or something like that. I can't remember. So CAs can still ding you.

Usually a limited contact letter is only used for people trying to work out a settlement. If you have no intention of paying, then a C&D is the way to go. Personally, I think a DV is a waste of time, effort and money (if the debt hasn't been sold). Because it does nothing that a C&D will not do--if the point is to get them off your back. In my case, I haven't C&D any creditor. But if I had to, I would have had to send out over 60 since 2006. Think about the time, money and effort that would have taken. Now double that number, if I DV them too. That would have been a lot of trips to the Post Office, waiting in line and paying for postage. So I decided to forego it all together, but you might want to C&D selectively to shed the trouble makers.

Just my opinion, but I haven't seen anything to indicate DV or C&D will lead to getting sued. In my case, I didn't do either and still got sued by Cap1. You could DV or not DV, and get sued or not get sued. It's hard to say what will happen. But don't let a fear of getting sued stop you from availing yourself of your rights. I kind of believe no matter what you do, if you get sued, you would have gotten sued anyway no matter what you did. Good luck!

[catleg]

Normally when they want to sue you it gets sent to an in-state (your state) law firm / collection agency. You may get sued if you DV them but it's likely you're about to get sued anyway.

Sending DV or CD to out of state CA's normally causes the CA to send the account back to its owner; they don't want to waste their time on you.

Normally, unless you are really serious about suing, a first class stamp is enough, you can save yourself the $5.54 or whatever it is now for certified mail with return receipt card.

[catleg]

Funny you should mention this, BB, as I have DV'd two local law firms and both responded by filing cases without providing validation, despite case law in NJ establishing that law firms are subject to FDCPA. One provided the validation later, one (to date) has not, the JDB.

I also had Mann Bracket respond with the NAF filing in response to a DV, at this point I'm waiting to find out if that one is still alive.

Actually, I think I can prove that a DV is not a sufficient reason for a lawsuit. My wife and I both have accounts with Citi, we've both received demand letters from their local CA/law firm, I've DV'd both of them, and yet only my wife has been sued. (Because they see she owns property, and they're not sure with me, or think I don't).

On the other hand, I DV'd the JDB and got sued but my feeling is that it just cut a few weeks out of the process.

[splinter]

Catleg, I haven't heard of DVs causing CAs to do this illegal stuff before. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Catleg, I think you're right that DVs have no bearing on who sues or doesn't sue. The way I see it, if you DV someone and they disappear, that means they weren't going to sue anyway. But if you DV someone who was going to sue, I doubt sending a form letter is going to change their minds. Either way, DVs are a waste of time and money (if the debt hasn't been sold).

The problem with automatically firing off DVs to all CAs is that most CAs aren't going to sue, and you're wasting your resources dealing with them. In my case, if I DVed everybody, only the DV to the Cap1 CA would have mattered. And in that case, the DV would have done no good. Cap1 had already made the decision to sue. Regardless of sending mass DVs, I'd still have the Cap1 judgment against me today.

The only instance I can think of where a DV would do some good is when someone is trying to seriously stall. There are a lot of folks who don't want a judgment but who don't have the money to file for BK just yet. A DV could work, but the timing has to be just right.

[IBroke]

Hi jumbod, CAs aren't allowed to place negative entries on your credit report. Only OCs can do that, because CAs work for the OCs and they don't own the account.

I'm not so sure on that one. If the CA has bought the debt, the OC usually reports "transferred to another lender" AND the account shows up as a collection reported by the CA. So yes, you can be hit twice.
If you purchase your FiCO-score, there is an entire section for "collections" - so yes, they can (and do show up) on your report.

[splinter]

Hi IBroke, I was saying, if the CA was collecting for the OC and didn't own the account. Sorry if it didn't read that way. Thanks and nice to meet you!

[IBroke]

Hi IBroke, I was saying, if the CA was collecting for the OC and didn't own the account. Sorry if it didn't read that way. Thanks and nice to meet you!

Hi splinter - nice to meet you, too..

Yes, that's correct. If the OC is still the owner, they mustn't report (because this would also "double" the reported debt)..

[jumbod]

Thanks for the responses.

(1) I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether or not a limited contact letter is legally valid or not because frankly I don't know. The situation was that the CA was calling all my relatives pretending that they didn't know where I was (although they have my correct address and my voice mail clearly and specifically identifies who I am so the claim that they couldn't contact me is pure BS.) So part of the limited contact letter was simply saying here is my contact info and do not call my relatives ever again claiming you don't know where I am at. The other part was asking that they only contact me via mail. That part I really could care less about. I don't want them calling my relatives. They were breaking the law when they did that and I just wanted to make my whereabouts official.

(2) the CA is an out of state firm so from what I am hearing you say they are not likely to be suing soon. Fine, that's all I really want right now. I know how to turn off my phone and throw letters in the trash.

(3) I guess if they still call my relatives I will do a full cease and desist and let the chips fall where they may.

[jumbod]

The only instance I can think of where a DV would do some good is when someone is trying to seriously stall. There are a lot of folks who don't want a judgment but who don't have the money to file for BK just yet. A DV could work, but the timing has to be just right.

Exactly, this is my whole basis of concern. I do not know in a legal sense if I am going to file BK. But it is looking increasingly likely that will happen whether I want it to or not. This CA is only the first down the pike.

A lawsuit or several CA lawsuits might force me to file BK even if I hope to avoid it, in addition to complicating any bankruptcy filing. So if DVing buys me time (ten months is way more than I need for my financial picture to become clearer) that's all I want.

At the end of the day what I want is to be able to control the process as much as possible. I understand that I don't have full control. But I want to be making decisions that reflect my needs rather than reacting in a desperate attempt to fend off an impending legal action. If they are going to sue me I want it to be on my time table, not theirs.

[catleg]

I think if you want to stretch things out as long as possible you'll have to take some calls from these creditors to give them some hope of eventually getting a payment out of you. I have so many that I couldn't be bothered, it would have been a full time job, and I still actually do have a full time job, which I prefer doing to talking to collection drones all day long. But as BB says it is really out of your hands, I'm sure they all have some kind of computer model which decides how to proceed against you. Looking at it from their perspective, the the model is trying to gauge whether you have either a willingness or a capability to pay. If you can score high on both, you can probably keep from being sued. Likewise if you score low on both. If you look like you have a capability to pay but no willingness is probably when you get sued.

[jumbod]

BB. I appreciate your attempt to sound tough. But the truth be told I already knew all of that. As I said, my goal is to exercise as much control as possible. How much is possible will be interesting to see as this all develops.

Of course the CAs can say anything they want, this is a free country and for the most part anyone can say anything they want. But this whole business is a risk reward business and the goal of sending letters, as is the goal of telling them you have no assets, is to increase the risk while diminishing the rewards. In that regard, my method is merely to indicate to them I know what I'm about and their is easier prey available to them. There is no guarantee that will work. But what other choice do I have? Bluster is all I got cause I don't got the money to pay.

Edit: I think in the above posts I had a wrong word choice. I've been using the word control when I should really be using the word influence. You are right, in a BK it's the trustee and the law that's in control. But that doesn't mean a person doesn't have influence. And there are effective ways and ineffective ways to influence the process, being honest and forthright the whole time.

You're right, I am new to the process. And I am still trying to figure out what tools I have at my disposal, what the likely consequence of using those tools are, and how to manipulate those tools to influence the outcome so that I can make the best of a bad situation.

[jumbod]

Looking at it from their perspective, the the model is trying to gauge whether you have either a willingness or a capability to pay. If you can score high on both, you can probably keep from being sued. Likewise if you score low on both. If you look like you have a capability to pay but no willingness is probably when you get sued.

Now this I must say is the first insightful thing I'm seen in this thread. I suspect that it is exactly right.

So what are the elements to this model. That's the key question.