CA's hate well informed consumers!

Good letter. Keeping a copy for my files :O)

 

I have some questions about your proposed letter.

What real difference does it make whether you do or do not deny or acknowledge?

How does one dispute that of which he has insufficient information or knowledge?

Exactly what does "true and proper validation" consist of?

Ok, so now we know part of what it does not consist of. What else does it not consist of?

Why would you attempt to tell them what their job consists of? Why do you insist on teaching the other fellow when you have already stated what it is that you are asking of him?

Again, why would you attempt to tell a professional what his job does or does not require him to do?

Ok. So you are a well read and informed person. How will knowing that help them to comply with your request?

Let's see now. With the fact firmly in mind you are requestion information of them? Information that if you were actually so well informed as you have firmly implanted in your mind you should have also read where all you had to do was call up the Attorney General's office and received the information right from the horse's mouth so to speak. Ok! Might make sense to the average bear.

Then why not just do it and be done with it?

Nice! The FTC isn't going to do you one bit of good, neither are any of the other organizations. And they know that. They have been there and done that before as a general rule and they are still only trying to collect the debt you owe them.

Interesting indeed! You attempt to obtain true and proper information and if you ever get any information you will use that to get that which you already got.

Perhaps your Johnny Hancock forged on to a blank check they don't have on your checking acount???

BTW, Did you ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle?

 

BBauer,

How would you word the letter?

 

CA's hate well informed consumers!
kgrant64
=============
Well informed customers don't let a CA know that he is.

The END ************************* LB 59

 

You forgot to mention that you will be verifying with the AZ Banking Department their license to collect in the State of Arizona, as well as with the AZ Corporations Commission their right to even do business in the State of Arizona, including payment of ACC Annual Filing Fees and the currency of CC reports.

I'm also an AZ resident. You can check both of these on line through the Arizona web site (www.az.gov)

 

What's wrong with one from the sample letters?

 

Gotta agree with Bill and Brown. The serious threats don't huff-and-puff, threaten, or showboat; unassuming, they deftly stalk the unwitting CA and let the CA fall into his own trap. Once you have multiple violations--go for the kill.

 

My point exactly Brown! Take the one from sample letters and chop it in half and you at least have the start of something reasonable. Its a bit wordy too, but its a whole lot better than just about anything publicly posted anywhere. Cut it down to a one page letter and it will at least have a crying chance to do whatever it will do.

It is pretty well established that it don't make much difference what the thing says so long as it at least has the demand for validation in it.

 

Once you have multiple violations--go for the kill.
boywonder
====================
Right you are.
And you don't do that by tipping your hand with this kind of letter.

An informed consumer has the common sense to realize if you ask to aggressively you may well get what you ask for and a nip in the seat of the pants right along with it.

 

I like the letter, and I bet it will work in many cases. Most CAs are VERY uninformed. The "nuisance quotient" of this letter is an 8 on a 10 point scale, lol, and that pays terrific dividends.

Doc

 

I thought against adding my Johnny Hancock, that way they couldn't forge a fake doc.

kgrant64
================
Perhaps before firing off something like this it would be better if you gave it some thought as to why you want to send a validation letter.
For example What do you expect from The CA and if the ca provides it will that be a benefit or liability on me.



The END ************************* LB 59

 

Yes, of course. Par for the course.

Oh, I don't think that is a very accurate statement. I am confident that they know their job which is to extract the greatest amount of cash out of the consumer at the earliest possible time and with the least amount of effort possible. It is the peripheral requirements of their job they are seemingly unaware of or uncaring about.

I tend to let them figure that out the hard way. As I have stated so often before, it is not my job to teach them their job.

Again, it is not my job to teach them their job. I'll take their old scrap of paper over a properly done validation any old day and twice on Sunday.

And????

There is a time and a place for everything and this isn't it.

I'm not either. However the validation letter I use has exactly 245 words in it while the one suggested has exactly 325 words in it. Mine has a much higher readability level than does the one suggested here on a Flesch readability scoring model. That means one simple thing and that is that my letter would get read and understood much more easily than the one suggested.

There are many other advantages to a well written letter. Seasoned collectors can tell what the intelligence level of a letter is by simply reading it and can mentally assess what level of education a writer has. A letter which is written with an average intelligence level of say 3.9 spouting off a lot of legal mumbo jumbo isn't going to cut much ice. A letter written by a person obviously carrying a grade level of say 14 stating some small amount of legal stuff is likely to get a lot of attention.

All of my letters are Flesch scored for grade level and readability. Little things mean a lot and I leave no stone unturned to be certain that I get results.

Understanding Flesch scores can tell one an awful lot about people, how they think, what their probable educational level is, how they will most likely react to certain given situations and more.

 

I agree.

It sounds like you have a good handle on what the potential violations are, so there is no reason to tip your hand. Give them the minimal amount of information you need to to establish a legal validation request, then let them make the mistakes on their own. Once you have them on the violations, then you have the leverage.

I like the idea about the high annoyance factor, but I don't think it will achieve your objective as readily as just playing naive.

 

While I hate to disagree with my good friends, I just can't agree with you on that statement, Doc.

While I must admit that to all outward appearances we must be dealing with a modern day replica of Cromangon Man it never pays to underestimate the enemy. Most collectors today are well educated and their companies spend a lot of time and money training their personell. NCO alone claims to spend more than a million dollars a year on training of employees alone and hold in house seminars and training classes. Additionally they spend huge sums all over the nation hosting seminars for judges, training them in their official duties.

In fact, Channel 7 put out a series a while back on this very type of thing. In Colorado and most if not all states, judges from all judicial levels from the Supremes down are required by law to attend training sessions and are paid to do so by the state. They draw special per diem expense money to attend these seminars and 2 different judges were caught by Channel 7 out playing golf after having signed in for the seminars, drawing taxpayer money for attending then skipping out to spend the day on the links. Then they went back to their office and filled out official documents claiming their "points" for having attended and getting their pay based on their sworn statement that they had attended the classes. In many states NCO and other collection agencys provide snacks for the judges and other perks in addition to the state pay they receive.
This is done as a "public service" and they also pay the expenses of the speakers at these conferences at times. Sometimes judges are hired to come speak to and train company employees about the law. More perks that can't hurt them in the courtrooms. Many collection agencies are owned and operated by attorneys.

To underestimate one's enemy is the worst mistake one can make.

No matter what one might think nor what mistakes they may make they are not uninformed, ignorant nor stupid.

One needs to understand that and deal with them appropriately.

 

1*As you well know some CA's violate FDCPA on a regular basis.
2*Therefore, they don't always know their job.
3*It's intended as a reminder that I am not just going to fork over any money.
4*True and proper" is also a reminder that I will not just accept any scrap of paper from anyone.
5*I've already had one CA who didn't follow anything regarding FDCPA.
6*I just want It clear that I know my rights as a consumer.
kgrant64
=============
1*Right so why do you want to help them out so they can use it against you?
2*And why would you want to give them free on the job training at your expense?
3*Why remind them?
4*Why when that is exactly what you want?
5*And what harm would it have caused you had they followed it?
6*Why blow your cover?


The END ************************* LB 59

 

This is an attemt to obtain true and proper validation,
Sincerely,
kgrant64
===============
Why do you want this?

 

I tend to agree with Bill on this one, although it was a nicely written letter I don't think it does justice so to speak.

When I write a validation letter I keep it very short and simple. Only stating that I am in dispute and I am asking for validation of the debt.

Thats it! No mention of the law or that I am even aware of the law so to speak.

I want them to violate the law!! By you telling them what they should already be doing is not good! Let them violate it again and again!!

You can bet that they probably will list the debt as disputed now that you told them about it in your letter, now what happens if they do that and then provide you with validation of the debt? They've also ceased communication during the validation period and have complied with the law.

What are you gonna do now?

Keep it simple and they will mess up!! Never fails with me!

Tac