I sent a request for validation to a CA regarding a medical company for $159 that was covered by insurance I'm pretty sure (I've always had medical insurance). The first validation said that they called their client and verified the amount. So, I had to send a 2nd letter saying that while that is fine and well, I need to know the date I was treated, the diagnosis, blah blah blah so that I can contact Pacificare. Today, I got a letter from them which is just a statement from the medical clinic saying I owe $159. So, I had to send a 3rd letter requesting they tell me this same information. They never list the client address or contact info on any of these letters (despite my requesting them to) or I would just contact the clinic myself. Apparently, they can't understand a plain English sentence. Maybe they've cut a side deal with the USPS to get a percentage of every certified letter sent to them.
Thatâ??s the spirit! Keep a good sense of humor about things, as such usually helps to promote balance (objectivity â?? so to speak). Youâ??ll sometimes read me refer to the collections business as a funny one (ha ha & strange), and now you know why?
Yeah, really. That doesn't mean diddly-squat. Example: I got an EOB from Aetna, my health insurer, for almost $500, - fortunately it gave the date, the treatment, the doctor, etc. The date was a date I had gone for a check up. The clinic was the same, the Dr was different. The amount of the bill seemd a little excessive, since I only had bloodwork done - no EKG or stress test or anything. So I took a closer look - it said it was "pre-natal fetal surgery." I whooped and hollered laughing (I am 56 yrs old), and called Aetna - said ummm, this isn't me. They said call the Dr's office. The billing clerk laughed with me when I told her how unlikely this was, and said she would get it straightened out. To their credit, they did. A couple of weeks later they called and told me it was straight, and a few days later I got the correct EOB. breeze
I have a question. What I fail to understand is why you would send them the 2nd and 3rd demands since it is my understanding that they must reply to you with some physical hardcopy evidence of what you owe and why. While I must stipulate to the thought that I may be as green as a gourd and as dumb as a fencepost and that the extra evidence provided by their subsequent failures to provide demanded information might provide you with additional reasons to take umbrage with them, it seems to me that you also run the risk that they might just accidentally wake up and die right, and then what would you do for an encore?
George: Much less a phone call telling you that you owe the money, eh, George? And then they complain that they have done nothing wrong when I send them the final letter demanding that they pay up for their mistakes before they end up in court in front of a jury trying to explain why they broke the law. Their squealing is hilarous when they finally wake up and realize what a predicament their slipshod methods might potentially have gotten them into. They never even want to hear about what the results would be IF they were actually to get sued. Just the threat is enough to fill their clothes line with freshly laundered undergarments.
All: Folks I canâ??t see where the collection agent kbelle refers to has done anything, aside from acting inefficiently, that has violated 15 USC §1692g (§809 â?? Validation of Debt). The statute does not specify that an agent MUST respond with 30 days, or that a longer time would violate §809. All the agent has done is wasted their own time by not effectively dealing with kbelleâ??s writings, nothing more! Now if Iâ??m missing something please point it out, as Iâ??d certainly like to know. Because based on the content of kbelleâ??s post, I just donâ??t get it...
May I respectfully suggest that those interested in this topic go to http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9902/perimeter-cmp.htm In this case, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PERIMETER CREDIT, L.L.C. and ACCOUNT PORTFOLIOS, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint alleges that: 1.Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(m)(1)(A), 9, 13(b), and 16(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), 49, 53(b), and 56(a), and Section 814 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692l, to obtain monetary civil penalties and injunctive or other relief for Defendants' violations of the FDCPA. ---------------------------------- In this particular case apparently filed by the government against a collection agency, and in specific reference to section 15 of the complaint, I see where it says the following: 15.On numerous occasions, in connection with the collection of debts originating from non-performing health club receivables purchased from Bally's Health & Tennis Corporation, when consumers have notified Defendants in writing within the thirty (30) day period described in Section 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), that the debts, or any portion thereof, were disputed, Defendants have continued to attempt to collect debts before verification of the debts was provided to consumers, in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). While I am certainly no legal expert such as you are, AU CONTRARE and must admit to being as green as a gourd and as dumb as a fence post, it seems to me in my status as Chief Ignoramus that this portion of the Federal lawsuit seems to address the situation under present discussion. Am I wrong? Maybe the Federal Government lost the case and the collection agency won. I don't know, so I have to see what others have to say.
LOL Breeze, here is my, ummmm, validation letter I intend to send to you in case any one else wants to use it: Breeze, Inc 1234 Main Street Nags Head, OB 90210 Ms. Breeze, This letter is not a letter of intent to refuse the debt, but rather it is a complete admission of guilt. Since my name is in your computer, I would like to settle with your company now. I accept your information (my name in your computer) as validation of my debt. If you agree to settle here, I will remit ummm...lets say like $26 bucks and a coupon for a free tire rotation at Sears, in return for complete deletion of my name from your computer. A simple wink and a nod from you will suffice as complete notification that all information (such as my name) has been purged from your system. -Peace out, Dave
LMAO!! Getting serious here: Dear Nave, Please send a check made out to breeze, inc., and a picture of yourself in the buff. I will then delete your name, however, I will retain the picture for future reference. I look forward to getting your name again. sincerely, breeze et al
All: Hmmm (stroking chin between index and thumb)â?¦ In the words of Dirty Harry, â?A manâ??s got to know his limitations.â? Be that as it may. Nothing in the Perimeter case correlates to this discussion, in context with what kbelle stated. Thus far, s/he has not indicated that the subject collection agent attempted to collect during the validation period â?? after effective notice of dispute.
Breeze: In an earlier post I made about a Federal Lawsuit filed against a collection agency which I though might be of interest to others, I made no reference to any other person(s) nor opinions of any other person(s). I made no quarrel with the opinions of anyone not any comments whatsoever about the opinions of any other person(s) In spite of painstaking efforts on my part not offend anyone, a post or two later I see the following: I even took extraordinary pains to make clear that I was not trying to be a smar-aleck nor to make it look like I knew more than someone else. I was trying to be as non-confrontational as possible for the specific purpose of avoiding yet another of these apparently interminable ad hominum attacks. Obviously to no avail. I respectfully posit to one and all that this is yet another proof of who is the guilty party in the current flame war. He has convicted himself.
So That Everyone Is Clearâ?¦ Just for the record (in case anyone should wonder)? A clear definition of the term â??ad hominemâ? can be found at Dictionary.com. Another explanation of particular relative interest is that of â??histrionics,â? specifically aspect No.2. Lastly another applicable word, â??BLAME!â? (Simply click on any subject word and voila, definition!)
Re: So That Everyone Is Clearâ?¦ Anthony, Bill, we are tired of the rhetoric! LET IT GO!!! Answer the board's questions with helpful intent and without hurtful intent. -Peace, Dave Love ya tho! Both!!
Can You Say, Balance? Dave: Thanks for pointing out what my â??intentsâ? are; Iâ??m glad youâ??ve brought them to my attention. Albeit I fail to grasp how making simple observations can be seen (by rational minds), as â??hurtfulâ? intents. Bearing in context that one shouldnâ??t be held responsible for the misinterpretations of another, based purely on presuppositions and histrionic conjecture (if not thin-skin). Obviously, I neednâ??t â??let goâ? of anything Iâ??m not guilty of! After all itâ??s one thing to be blanketed with false accusations, and offer no direct response. And quite another to be chastised without cause! Truly, youâ??re not the only one getting â??tired of the rhetoric!â? Plainly if youâ??re going to include me as propagator of unpleasantness, at least have the decency to do so objectivity! It requires only a pittance of will to do so.
