Dispute the validity of this debt?

Well, the first step is to hit them with a validation letter. You say you found over 700 of them doing a search.

While (obviously) mine is better than all the rest -0),
the truth is that most any of them will do the job fairly well. The validation letter is just a way to put the matter in dispute, and that's all it's good for. Basically, all you are doing with the validation letter is demanding that they provide you with proof of the debt. And getting them to do that (exactly that, nothing more, nothing less) is the last thing you want to actually have happen to you. You DO NOT actually want what you are demanding of them. You have to hope and pray that it don't happen when you send the validation letter.

It's what happens after you send the letter that counts, not the letter itself. It's just a ruse in actuality. You demand one thing and hope something else happens (or doesn't happen) in reality.

So it's all in knowing what to do next that gets the result, and what to do next depends upon how they react to the validation letter.

That's why you need to learn how to handle the situation before you jump in and get yourself off into deep water without knowing how to swim.

 

Mike,
First of all, Dont contact them over the phone. There are only certain situations that I would do that and this is not one of them. Second, Just send a simple letter stating that you would like them to prove that you have some contractual obligation to pay them. I personally like to add in some crazy questions of my own that I feel work for various different reasons. Here is a brief example of a custom letter.

To whom it may concern:

Thank you for your recent inquiry about this alleged debt. I am writing you to let you know that your claim is disputed. Please understand that this is not a refusal to pay. This is a request for validation pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

(this will give you an idea of what you are asking for. It doesnt make you sound overly intelligent, it just makes you sound like you are aware of your rights.)

Now sometimes in the body of the letter I will ask those silly but effective questions that I was making reference to earlier.Here is a few that you could add in..

I need documents or information that show I how I might be obligated to pay you. Do "we" have an agreement, maybe a contract in writing? I have never heard of your company before. What is the nature of your business? Are you a depository or lending institution? Did you provide me with any services or products? If you did, please list them and be specific. What did I buy from you? Did either of us rely on the other to perform? When did you solicit your business? If I owe you money as you claim, then what is your obligation to me? Please answer these as soon as you can be specific. If you dont provide me the information requested within thirty days I will consider the purported debt not to be valid, and that you made a mistake...


Believe me, these questions drive a majority of collectors crazy. They do not know how to respond to this and they back off. If they happen to show how you dont owe them anything that is even better. I do not care what anyone else tells you on this board or any other, this stuff works and I stand by this all day long. Good luck and I hope this gives you an idea of where to go...

 

Mike, after the validation letter you will receive one of many possible responses. This is where it gets funny. They may not respond at all. They may respond with information from the original creditor that proves nothing. They may respond with info such as a contract between you and the original creditor. They may try to answer the question that you asked them to answer about there party and you not having any agreement at all or obligation to each other. If they do answer those questions, then you have documention to show the credit bureaus. Just remember that you have every right not to deal with the collection agency. I wouldnt deal with them at all, until they screw up and are begging to help you. If you are certain that they wont sue due to the amount being to low or because the Sol is up in your state, I would put a cease and desist statement in your letter asking them not to contact you except through written mail. Many times they will screw up and contact you anyway. Even if they show you a contract stating that you owe the creditor money, it does not mean that you owe the collector a penny. Even if the Sol isnt up in your state, the 7 year reporting rule is up and therefore the Credit reporting agencies must remove it.

By the way do a search on your states statute of limitations to find out if your sol is up. Make sure there are no judgements against you....Send all communications certified mail return receipt requested.

 

GoDaddyo:

There is one thing that I really hate to see in these validation letters, and that is the following.

I am writing you to let you know that your claim is disputed. Please understand that this is not a refusal to pay. This is a request for validation pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
**************************
Here is what I do to replace all that above.
**************************
I would like to settle this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. In order to facilitate the process, I must request that you validate the purported indebtedness.
***************************
What I don't tell them is exactly how I plan to "settle" this matter.

This gets them to salivating big time, and they quiite often make a silly mistake which is to write back with something stupid like telling me it is a simple matter to settle the matter by writing them a check for the full amount or whatever wording they might use. Most of them will also include the statement that they now consider the matter to be in dispute and will get back to me as soon as the debt is validated.

Then they call up Shamless Sham Corp. and ask the bookkeeper if this is a legitimate debt or not and then send me a letter stating that they called up the debtor who claims that this is a valid debt. Please pay up.
**************************
Oh, It's crying time again!

You didn't validate the debt and now have committed 2 illegal acts contrary to both federal and state law. What do you plan to do to atone for your lack of compliance with the law?

In an effort to reach an amicable settlement of this matter before filing complaint with the proper authorities, I will entertain any ideas you may have., Yada Yada Yada! And I let them guess what is meant by "proper authorities." I never tell them I'm going to file complaint with the U.S. District Attorney or anything like that. I just let them imagine who it might be that I am referring to as "proper authorities."

You would be surprised how fast they swallow hard.

The idea is that I think it's better to go in with softsoap first and let them make their mistakes, then go after them.

I don't threaten to file suit on them, I threaten to "report them to the "proper authorities"" whoever that might be.

If they still don't offer to pay the debt off themselves by that time, but come back with another stupid, I then prepare the documents for filing suit in U.S. Federal District Court and send them a copy of that. What I send them is only an outline of what the case against them might be along with the proper case cites showing how others have lost to the debtor and been hit with damage awards.

It never has their name on it and it never has anything at the top naming the court. It doesn't say anything to the effect of JOHN DOE plaintiff v Sleaze Bag Collection Agency or anything like that.

Just the outline of what the arguments might be. I also send them a partial NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS letter too.

It starts off telling them that this is not a formal summons or notification from the court, but rather a request that they sign and return the enclosed waiver of service in order to save the cost of serving them with a judicial summons and an additional copy of the complaint.. It says that the cost of service will be avoided if I receive a signed copy of the waiver within 30 days. after the proveable receipt of this letter by them.

Between the two, they think they have been had for sure.
They quit thinking in terms of collecting real quick and start thinking about how they can get out of this mess.

I'm quite sure they never go look up the cases to see for themselves. It just looks like they are about to be slapped up side the head with a huge damage award and at the very least might have to actually go to court and defend a losing battle, and to be sure, they don't even want to take a chance of having to do that.

Especially if the debt isn't all that large. Collection agencies fall for it almost every time and are soon on the horn or in the mail wanting to "settle this matter" at the earliest possible opportunity. The shoe is now on the other foot, and it's them that is crying for mercy not me.

And I only need a couple of case cites to make it look like they are dead ducks.

The reactions I get are enough to make it seem as though they just crapped their pants on receipt of the letter.

One thing for sure is that I've never yet had them send me back a letter agreeing to waive the cost of summons and complaint. (LOL)

 

GoDaddyo

We must have been writing our comments at about the same time the way things look because we both came up with pretty much saying the same things.
************************
Mike, after the validation letter you will receive one of many possible responses. This is where it gets funny. They may not respond at all. They may respond with information from the original creditor that proves nothing. They may respond with info such as a contract between you and the original creditor.
They may try to answer the question that you asked them to answer about there party and you not having any agreement at all or obligation to each other. If they do answer those questions, then you have documention to show the credit bureaus. Just remember that you have every right not to deal with the collection agency. I wouldnt deal with them at all, until they screw up and are begging to help you.
*********************
And it sure don't make any difference how many people tell us we are as crazy as loons, it's what works in the majority of cases that counts. Just because JOE SIXPACK, attorney at law or whatever he may be comes into this or any other forum and says we would be in deep trouble if we ever tried it on him don't mean it doesn't work in the majority of examples, and that's what counts.

We are dealing with the morons at the collection agencies, not F. Lee Bailey types who would be capable of handing us our heads on a platter. Collection agency types don't even think about asking their lawyer, they just want out of the mess at the least possible expense, so they do whatever to get their tails out of there.

Coldata, NCO, EMCC.INC. and a whole ton more of them have fallen victims to these approaches. You just have to learn how to do it or else get someone else who does know how to pull it off to do it for you. What I'm getting them to do is to pay off the debt for you or forgive it, which ever the case may be. Then go to the credit bureau and demand they verify the listing. Naturally, they either don't get a response or if they do, it's and order to "for christ sakes get it off the man's files quick"

Then if the stupid credit bureau does come back and claim it's been validated, you have a way to haul the credit bureau into court and use the collection agency as a witness against them. I've never had it go that far yet, but maybe some day. If that ever did happen, I'd be willing to bet that the credit bureau would be backing water real quick too. I don't think they'd let it go that far, however.

 

Daddy-O:
Foremost, collection agents arenâ??t â??idiotsâ? and to refer to them as such is itself somewhat idiotic (although Iâ??m not asserting youâ??re an â??idiotâ? per se). Secondly, the consumer "IS" under a CONTRACTUAL obligation to pay the agent. General assignment and/or paper purchase takes care of that issue, whereas the consumer is under the same â??CONTRACTUALâ? obligation as to the original creditor (whether express or implied, contractually)!

By all means disagree with me if you feel it appropriate, yet that wonâ??t change the hard facts: i) collection agents should seldom be disrespected so lightly; and, ii) they DO (without question) have a contractual RIGHT to collection of a debt. Of course if you still donâ??t get it, please cite the authority upon which you base such assumptions?

 

Well, Anthony, I am afraid I must concur with you in that the debtor does owe the debt and is obligated to pay whether by reason of written and signed contract or by reason of having incurred the debt by other means such as a verbal agreement. In my opinion, the fact of obligation to pay cannot be disputed unless it really isn't your debt or other honest error.

And I suppose I might be able to find some grounds upon which to agree with you over the application of the term "idiot" albeit quite reluctantly. -0)

I just might have to settle for "moron" or "imbecil" (LOL)

Have a nice one, Anthony.

 

Funny, I was thinking the same after reading several of the above-posts.

 

What the hey!
We gotta agree sooner or later (LOL)

 

Well... How many think today is the day, can we see a show of hands? (How can one say "imbecil" in SUBTEXT?)

 

I will apoligize for using such stong language. At times I just get a little frustrated with the whole idea of collections. On one hand I see a necessary evil. On the other hand I see an industry that thrives and prospers from the consumers inability to pay debts. My experience with most collectors has been rather disheartening to say the least. The behavior displayed by most of the major recovery insititutions is a disgrace. Most of the individuals working for this industry are nothing but bottom feeding slime that feed off of the unfortunate circumstances of someone else. I do understand that there are a select group of dead beats out there who do not pay there bills on purpose. But this hardly constitutes the majority of situations that I have encountered when dealing with these agencies on my behalf and for others. I STRONGLY STAND BY MY DEFENSE THAT A CONSUMER DOES NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO DEAL WITH COLLECTION AGENCIES. There is no contractual obligtation to deal with them. That said, all matters should be handled between the persons involved in the original contract. Deviation from this contact is a breech on either end. I dont care about agency principles or the collectors rights. As far as I am concerned the debt is between the Debtor and the Creditor. This is simple contract law and I will firmly back it. This is not meant to be offensive to those who have participated in the collection industry. But my honest opinion is that consumers have every right not to deal with these third parties for multiple reason. People should pay their debts when possible. This has nothing to do with the consumers obligation to pay the debt to the original creditor. I guess you could say I am ANTI- Collection Agency...

 

Well... How many think today is the day, can we see a show of hands?
***********
An excellent idea, Anthony! A vote of confidence from the people, one might say. Now why didn't I think of that? Oh well, I guess that's why we need to look up to great leaders such as yourself. It's not often we get a chance to really talk to the "heads of the industry", the leaders such as yourself who are so nice and accomodating as to come into these discussions and give us the benefit of years of experience in the field.

I guess only truly great industry leaders come up with such brilliant ideas as calling for a vote of confidence from time to time.

Seems to me that the reason that GoDaddyo and others (mistakenly? rudely?) use such derogatory terms as they do is because in their daily dealings with the collection agencies they don't run into the upper echelons of the collection industry such as yourself. All they ever come into contact with are the "foot soldiers" who must deal with the deadbeats on a daily basis. So they are lacking in the skills required to deal with fine upstanding, intelligent leaders such as yourself.

You will just have to excuse them, Anthony. I"m sure you understand how these things work. A few bad apples tend to spoil the whole barrel, you know.

Have patience with them. They simply are not equipped to deal with the upper level management people in the collections business. Maybe they will pick up a few lessons in finesse from you as well.
*************************
(How can one say "imbecil" in SUBTEXT?)

Anthony Villaseñor
CreditDefenses.com
â?¦ Problem Debts From Red To Blackâ?¢
*************************
WOW! A great question!!! How does one do that? Listen up folks, I think if we are lucky, Anthony will answer the burning question for us.

Only time will tell.

 

Anthony,
Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative. My goal is to first seek to understand where you are coming from. In your earlier post you asked me to cite the authority upon which I base my assumptions. I must also ask that you please cite the authority that you make your assumptions. You have stated that "Agency Principles" are the final say so. Please explain these "Agency Principles" in detail so that others can identify with this foreign term. Also please state exactly how the consumer "IS" under a CONTRACTUAL obligation to pay the agent. Please explain how General assignment and/or paper purchase take care of this issue, whereas the consumer is under the same contractual obligation as to the original creditor (whether express or implied, contractually)! This may help me understand exactly where you are coming from. Also, I would like to know if these are federal or state laws that you are referring to. Does each state follow these principles?

Now I will let you in on what I believe. First of all, I do not believe that an actual agreement or contractual obligation can take place between a collector and a debtor, unless a Novation occurs between the collector and debtor. This means that the debtor agrees that even though his legal duty to pay the original creditor has been extinguished, he agrees to pay the new collector anyway. This is a substituted contract that adds a third party that was not party to the original duty. In order for this Novation to occur there must be 1) A Previous valid obligation, 2) An agreement of all the parties to a new contract, 3. The extinguishment of the old obligation, and 4) The validity of the New one..

Civil Law recognizes these three types of novation: 1. When the debtor and the creditor remain the same, but a new debt takes the place of the old one. 2. Where the debt remains the same, but a new debtor is substituted and 3. Where the debt and debtor remain the same, but a new creditor is substituted. Collection agencies usually try to obtain the third situation and this is where an account holder can effectively use the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to easily purge an unsecured debt. The defense would be under failure of consideration, release, or statute of fraud.

If I agree to pay for a service and enter into a contract to that effect, then it may be enforceable. However, if the written terms of the contract create only obligations for me, but not for the other party, it can be said to be unconscionable. It could not then be enforceable in any court for two reasons, the first because it was not fair or equitable, and the second because such an action to enforce it would be barred by the statute of frauds ( no contract in writing).

Although assignment is permitted by normal business practices, the assignee (debt collector) is not named in the agreement so the debt is not owed to the collector. Because the collector assigns the account to a third party, he waives his rights to collect afterwards. No meeting of the minds equals = Repudiation.

There are certain principles of law that protect debtors from the collection efforts of third party debt collectors. One of these involves the concept that one cannot put oneself in harm's way and maintain a suit for damages resulting there from. "Scienti et volenti non fit injuria" in which the literal translation is "An Injury is not done to one who knows and wills it." This is what debt collectors do when they assume liability for collecting a debt from you on behalf of an assignor. I would also like to state that many times the creditor (assignor) makes an insurance claim for an assignment or claims it as a tax deduction. This is known as "accord and satisfaction" because the creditor accepted payment from a third party for the debt or a portion of it. This renders the debt satisfied and legally uncollectible by the creditor or any subsequent assignees. These tax deductions make the debtor legally responsible to pay taxes on the so called earned income that derived from not paying the debt..... So to answer your question Anthony, the authority that I go by is our civil laws that define contractual laws and agreements..Please show me how the agency principles defy simple contract law...

 

I will apoligize for using such stong language. At times I just get a little frustrated with the whole idea of
collections.

Yes, I can well understand, GoDaddyo. But that's because we seldom get the chance to deal with the upper echelons of the collections industry. We seem to always have to deal with the more lowly types. So we tend to lump the good with the bad. It's a common human frailty, dontcha know???

On one hand I see a necessary evil.
_______
I think that depends upon one's viewpoint, GoDaddyo.
If one is a poor creditor who has done nothing wrong but try to help those who are less fortunate than they, then it's only "necessary.", but if one is a poor debtor who has had the misfortune to break his funny bone and thereby becomes almost permanently disabled, unable to earn his former salary, maybe even having to file bankruptcy as a result, it's only an "evil".
----------
On the other hand I see an industry that thrives and prospers from the consumers inability to pay debts.

Well, even the bottom feeding slime have to thrive on something, don't they?

My experience with most collectors has been rather disheartening to say the least.
MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS SAKES ALIVE!!!! Why should that have been so? All you had to do was to pay your debts and you wouldn't have all those problems. Maybe you should quit beating your wife and then she would be in a better shape to go out and make the living and let you stay home with the kids. After all, the bill collectors all know that deadbeats must be wife beaters too, don't they?


The behavior displayed by most of the major recovery insititutions is a disgrace. Most of the individuals working for this industry are nothing but bottom feeding slime that feed off of the unfortunate circumstances of someone else.

Yes, but you must understand that Anthony is a different breed. A "cut above" if you will. Anyway, we can easily see that he is turning over a new leaf. I think we are seeing a newer, kindlier, more understanding, more patient Anthony. By calling for a vote of the people, he simply wants to see if others have noticed the difference.

He even asks for help from the people in order to solve some weighty computer related problem he seemingly has. See here?
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
(How can one say "imbecil" in SUBTEXT?)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Now that should prove once and for all that Anthony does try to learn from others if at all possible!!!

Yes, I think we are seeing a new beginning here. Don't you?
IMAGINE THAT!!!!

 

GoDaddyo
***************
There are certain principles of law that protect debtors from the collection efforts of third party debt collectors. One of these involves the concept that one cannot put oneself in harm's way and maintain a suit for damages resulting there from. "Scienti et volenti non fit injuria" in which the literal translation is "An injury is not done to one who knows and wills it." This is what debt collectors do when they assume liability for collecting a debt from you on behalf of an assignor. I would also like to state that many times the creditor (assignor) makes an insurance claim for an assignment or claims it as a tax deduction. This is
known as "accord and satisfaction" because the creditor accepted payment from a third party for the debt or a portion of it. This renders the debt satisfied and legally uncollectible by the creditor or any subsequent assignees. These tax deductions make the debtor legally responsible to pay taxes on the so called earned income that derived from not paying the debt..... So to answer your question Anthony, the authority that I go by is our civil laws that define contractual laws and agreements..Please show me how the agency principles defy simple contract law...
**************
Yes, GoDaddyo, I know. But we poor deluded debtors are not supposed to know about any of those things. And when we learn about and use such things we are taking unfair advantage of Anthony and his brethren, dontcha think?

In the collections business, the debtor must roll over and play dead, and pull out his wallet in the process of rolling over and before playing dead. When the debtors begin failing to peacefully comply with the collection process, then it requires the attention of the great industry leaders who must go out upon the internet and find out why so that they can then adjust the process a bit. It's their job to keep the process rolling smoothly.

It should be easily understandable that it is they who must keep the wheels of commerce well greased and rolling smoothly. They must resolve the weighty matters such as how to do things in SUBTEXT, whatever that is.

 

[But my honest opinion is that consumers have every right not to deal with these third parties for multiple reason. QUOTE]Originally posted by godaddyo
==========================

One good reason being that it is hard enough to get 2 people to agree on anything!
Adding a 3Rd. party just complicates the matter and ads more confusion thus making it even more difficult to reach an agreement!-----------------



WITH COLLECTION AGENCIES. There is no contractual obligtation to deal with them. That said, all matters should be handled between the persons involved in the original contract. Deviation from this contact is a breech on either end. I dont care about agency principles or the collectors rights.

 

Well, my friend canâ??t help ya. But hay ask the Barron who clearly posses far more knowledge than I, irrespective Iâ??ve spent almost half my life in the collections biz. Besides, far be it from me to burst any hallucinogenic bubbles of perception verses reality by to-hell with the facts. Believe what you will, after all Iâ??m nothing more than a scum bag from an industry you loathe; yet desperately seek to understand. Aaack! No soup for you today! [;-)