Can someone please tell me if this a good letter to send to Collection Atty

[TXskyblue]

They are required to cease debt collection efforts until they respond to the DV.

Theoretically, they could have been seeking clarification of your DV letter. Therefore, they could claim it was not an attempt to collect a debt but rather an attempt to facilitate your request. It's BS because obviously they were calling to collect on the debt, but there it is. If they had left a message, you could possibly have had a case.

In the event that they violate the FDCPA, the statutory damages are $1,000 plus attorney fees. If you are well-versed in the law, have free time, and are detail-oriented, you may be able to go pro se. If you draft the complaint and send it to the JDB as an intent to sue, they may well settle. It happens if they think you're serious and capable of winning. I have heard of some lawyers taking FDCPA cases on contingency, but I have no input on how to find one.

[mdl]

Another question... Sent DV letter, attorney's office signed for it on 6-3-14...
Caller ID shows they called on 6-4-14, but didn't leave a msg...
Did they just violate FDCPA?

[AllMyDefault]

Wow, thanks for that. I guess I just lucked out that I only wrote initials on a note of dispute. I wonder if that is/was even necessary.

[TXskyblue]

Less than scrupulous JDBs have been known to lift a signature and forge it on other documenta, like repayment agreements.

Yep. Junk debt buyers are unscrupulous. Trust them about as far as you can throw them.

For the record, I do not recommend paying junk debt buyers. It's a topic for a different board, but I would never pay one. Have the original creditor recall the debt if you want to make good on it.

[Crawley]

Less than scrupulous JDBs have been known to lift a signature and forge it on other documenta, like repayment agreements.

[AllMyDefault]

What is the reason for not signing?

[GoingDown]

Thanks guys. Ok, so I use bcohen's letter, but I have a problem with using the word DISPUTE, because we don't. What should I say?

Using the actual word "DISPUTE" is very important, not only to preserve your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but also to ward off any lawsuit using the "account stated" method...

"§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(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;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."

[Pandora]

agree.. this should be sticky

[TXskyblue]

Thanks bcohen for your help. We sent the letter yesterday CRRR verbatim. Told my son at least it bought him some time. I wonder though, with what you have said, if he were to be sued, if the JDB paying pennies on the dollar, if that could be an assertive defense.

Not in the slightest.

[mdl]

Thanks bcohen for your help. We sent the letter yesterday CRRR verbatim. Told my son at least it bought him some time. I wonder though, with what you have said, if he were to be sued, if the JDB paying pennies on the dollar, if that could be an assertive defense.

[jacko]

Should be a sticky. I totally agree. There is no such thing as 'moral obligation' in this dog eat dog US of A. You have to do what is best for you and your creditors be damned. Food and shelter should be your priority.

With all due respect, this is a third-tier junk debt buyer (JDB). This is not the original creditor! If the debt was still owned by the original creditor, then I could at least understand why you might feel a sense of moral obligation to pay something, as the original creditor obviously lost a lot of money when you defaulted on the debt. However, the moment that the original creditor sold the debt to the first JDB, your sense of moral obligation should have ended. Unlike an original creditor, which lends money in good faith, JDB's are speculators who buy defaulted debts--knowing that most of them will never be repaid--for pennies on the dollar. Each successive JDB pays less and less for the debt, because the probability that anything will ever be collected decreases as time passes. Any money you pay at this point WILL NOT go to the original creditor, because they have sold their right to collect the debt.

The point I am trying to make is that once a debt has been sold several times--or even one time, morality should not enter the equation. You did not have a contract with the JDB, and you did not cause the JDB to lose any money. If they chose to purchase your debt on a gamble that they could guilt you into paying, threaten you into paying, or sue you into paying, and that gamble ends up being a bad bet, that's the JDB's problem. They are counting on the fact that a certain percentage of people can be intimidated into paying hundreds--or even thousands--of dollars toward a debt which the JDB might have paid less than $10 for.

PLEASE do not let this so-called "moral obligation"--which does NOT exist anyways--distract you from the issue at hand, which is that a company with whom you have no prior business relationship is trying to collect a debt which they may or may not even be legally entitled to collect. Additionally, even if the company is able to prove that they own the debt--which will ONLY happen if you send a dispute letter such as the one I posted above--then you should still probably not pay anything. I fail to see how you gain anything by paying toward this debt ever again, because in 3 more years, the debt will "fall off" of your credit reports as long as you do nothing to re-age it, such as making payments or signing a new promissory note, etc.

[bcohen]

With all due respect, this is a third-tier junk debt buyer (JDB). This is not the original creditor! If the debt was still owned by the original creditor, then I could at least understand why you might feel a sense of moral obligation to pay something, as the original creditor obviously lost a lot of money when you defaulted on the debt. However, the moment that the original creditor sold the debt to the first JDB, your sense of moral obligation should have ended. Unlike an original creditor, which lends money in good faith, JDB's are speculators who buy defaulted debts--knowing that most of them will never be repaid--for pennies on the dollar. Each successive JDB pays less and less for the debt, because the probability that anything will ever be collected decreases as time passes. Any money you pay at this point WILL NOT go to the original creditor, because they have sold their right to collect the debt.

The point I am trying to make is that once a debt has been sold several times--or even one time, morality should not enter the equation. You did not have a contract with the JDB, and you did not cause the JDB to lose any money. If they chose to purchase your debt on a gamble that they could guilt you into paying, threaten you into paying, or sue you into paying, and that gamble ends up being a bad bet, that's the JDB's problem. They are counting on the fact that a certain percentage of people can be intimidated into paying hundreds--or even thousands--of dollars toward a debt which the JDB might have paid less than $10 for.

PLEASE do not let this so-called "moral obligation"--which does NOT exist anyways--distract you from the issue at hand, which is that a company with whom you have no prior business relationship is trying to collect a debt which they may or may not even be legally entitled to collect. Additionally, even if the company is able to prove that they own the debt--which will ONLY happen if you send a dispute letter such as the one I posted above--then you should still probably not pay anything. I fail to see how you gain anything by paying toward this debt ever again, because in 3 more years, the debt will "fall off" of your credit reports as long as you do nothing to re-age it, such as making payments or signing a new promissory note, etc.

[LadyInTheRed]

A dispute is a term used when questioning or asking for verification of accuracy. I understand what you are saying, but you do want to put yourself in the best position to not be taken advantage of when you do negotiate a payment plan. IMO, by using bcohen's letter, you are showing the creditor that you are aware of your rights, and have the resources that it will be difficult to take advantage of you, and believe me, they will do that at any opportunity.

Exactly. You have no evidence that the creditor has a right to collect the debt. Until they prove they do, you should dispute it. This also may very well make the creditor go away. As bcohen said, a debt of this size is really not worth filing a lawsuit for, even for a firm with a reputation for suing. They are looking for easy money. There's no guaranty they won't sue, but why make their job easier by doing anything other than disputing the debt? If they send validation of the debt, then you can offer a settlement. If their evidence is week, you can use that in your negotiation.

[Pjmax]

A dispute is a term used when questioning or asking for verification of accuracy. I understand what you are saying, but you do want to put yourself in the best position to not be taken advantage of when you do negotiate a payment plan. IMO, by using bcohen's letter, you are showing the creditor that you are aware of your rights, and have the resources that it will be difficult to take advantage of you, and believe me, they will do that at any opportunity.

[mdl]

Thanks guys. Ok, so I use bcohen's letter, but I have a problem with using the word DISPUTE, because we don't. What should I say?