Searching for a CA validation letr

Its not a matter of what is or is not reasonable that is the controlling factor. Its money as usual. If you want the answer to a problem it can usually be found by following the money trail. Collectors are paid on commissions and that 5 minutes spent unproductively hurts the paycheck as well as the company's bottom line. It produces no revenue and is unproductive so it gets put off until it gets forgotten about. Your interests are not important to them. Neither are your rights nor the law if they had their way.

You seem to think it isn't busy. Think again. Experienced collectors are expected to service about 1500 accounts a month and the inexperienced anywhere from maybe 600 to 1000 a month. You think thats not pressure? Just go try it.

Maybe, but why not let them and kill two birds with one stone.(LOL)

Again, that may be your idea and I'm not saying that its wrong, but I want the maximum number of violations to assure the kill.

I think you miss your guess and my resoning is that they know full well what is happening and what has happened. They learned it from hard experience. So they are not likely to fight about what is common knowledge between them. Thats why they can buy a million dollars worth of debts for a hundred bucks or so.

I don't think you have defended it very well, but PLEASE let's not argue about that one way or the other.

The better point is that you do have a valid concept that needs serious developmental work to become a very powerful weapon but the basics are there. Nothing wrong with the basic thinking at all. Brilliant in fact so long as we are careful to use it at the proper time and place, under the right conditions.

So let's move on.

 

Well, maybe I'm wrong but I tend to think that the simple answer to the whole problem is to validate.

The first one tried to get out of validating the debt so he sold it to the next one. So you demand validation of the second one and now he has to go back to the first one who still has to do what he didn't want to do or could not do in the first place and that puts the both of them in hot water.

And if you play the cards right you just might end up with a nice cash settlement out of the both of them for the same debt.

And so what if they don't pay you off to keep you from filing suit on them but just take it off and get rid of it? So what! You got the job done and thats about all you wanted in the first place only now you should not have to worry about it coming back to haunt you later.

 

I started to edit the message above and then got into a long phone call with a person from Texas so my time to edit expired and I had to post a new message to continue.


But don't think its going to be quite that simple. It always takes a well thought out plan that carries the ball over the finish line.

And sometimes they are so damned bullheaded you actually have to sue them. But before you say **** on that, just remember that if you are going to play with fire you just might have to suffer the heat. Might even get burned a time or two. Life's like that sometimes.

Simple demand for validation then estoppel may get the job done sometimes but not always.

What is going on here is a bit like school. You go to kindergarten first, you learn about disputing with the credit bureaus. You graduate and get your little diploma.

Then you go to elementary school and you learn about validation and estoppel and maybe a little bit about the law. You graduate and get your diploma.

But you are not educated until you get through high school and even college and have actual experience under your belt. Then maybe you have become "educated" but most assuredly not until.

 

Oh horrors, I just realized what was deleted when Butch's letter was moved to the sample letter forum.

When sending this letter, I mailed (at Butch's suggestion), a copy of the sample letter to CA #1, and OC as suggested by LKH. We really need him to come back and reexplain that part of the theory.

KHM, whose the collector? Maybe we can get a fax number and send them a new C & D to get them off your parents back.

 

NO!!!!! The parents have to do that and it needs to be a full cease & desist, not just a partial. They have to sign it and be the only ones signing it.

Fix up a full cease & desist, take it to the parents, have them sign it and send it from their address.

The letter should state "Junior" don't live here.

Its just that simple and there are plenty of examples on the net to use.

 

Kellie, the original thread was deleted, but here was some instructions I was given for its use:

Hi Lynn,

This, in my opinion is continued collection activity.

I designed and posted a letter some time ago to deal with situations like this. "Subsequent CA strategy!".

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...uent#post243786

Send this letter (revised to fit your case of course) and copies of all your val. demands to RMA, and copies of green cards proving SW received it.

You may notarize it for added effect.

Keep us posted.



Butch,


RMA was CA #2 and SW was CA #1

 

Damn.

You're right. A lot of good discussion is gone.

 

Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

Put simply, the OC can be responsible for the violations of their collectors. If you inform the OC about all this stuff you may get them to assert some degree of influence over how it turns out.

Just another mechanism for increasing the pressure.

 

Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

Just tailor the letter around what you have. At this moment the green card isn't an issue, because they did respond, so obviously they got it.