Nego.: orig. creditor vs. collector

Today, when I had to pay the "painful payment" (see other post), I tried the original creditor and they said that they couldn't accept payment anymore..they didn't even have a record..

I would have loved to jump on that one in disputing had I the time..

so, someone here will answer this, I'm sure...I'm interested, too

 

Hey Guys,

I have always been told that you should deal with the original creditor. However, in your case Nana I don't know what to tell you. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Manny

 

Why would you want to negotiate a settlement in exchange for removal?

The only way I can see that to be a reasonable way to go is if the bill is less than $100. Once the bill is greater than that, then it is cheaper to simply sue if that is what is necessary. Usually it isn't.

As far as Nana's problem, it still isn't too late to fight the deal and possibly make them pay it back. Just depends upon how much the battle is worth to you.

 

Bill,

How can new accomplish this short of filing a lawsuit?

Manny

 

In order to accomplish it, one must first get them to break the law. This is the sole purpose of the validation letter.
which ideally should be sent upon receipt of first demand for payment, but can be sent at any time, even though the creditor or collection agency has made many demands in the past.

There are many ways in which the creditor or collection agency can and almost always does break the law.

Here are a few.

1. Receives validation letter and responds properly, giving notice of receipt of dispute and stating that no further collection attempts will be made until dispute is settled but in actuality does send demands for payment absent legally proper validation.

2. Makes phone calls to debtor demanding payment absent proper validation of debt after demand.

3. Fails to complete validation process in a timely manner.

4. Makes verification of debt to credit bureau prior absent proper validation of debt.

Any of the above are violations of the FDCPA and are chargeable.

Those are the most common mistakes made by collection agencies and creditors alike.

 

Bill,

Thank you for your response.

Manny

 

Bill,
I was wanting your opinion on this. If you cant get the ca,creditor or cra to break the law, what would be the best route to go. Would you try to bluff? I am just wondering what would be the next step. I know this probably rarely happens, but I just want to pick your brain...

 

Picking my brain

What to do if you can't get the collection agency or creditor to break the law?

That can be a tough nut to crack.
One of the strategies I have used in the past is the Estoppel letter. Once you send them that, it usually elicits a response out of them. That is sent at the end of 35 days and in the Estoppel letter, you are claiming that the creditor or collection agency no longer has any right of collection because he has failed to answer the demand for validation.

That would mean that he loses his right to collect, or at least that is what the Estoppel letter would seem to claim.
That will usually get them to screaming.
Of course, since you are demanding validation of the CRA at the same time, if they respond to the CRA and verify, they have then broken the law as well.

This is also a lever against the claims the CRA makes that they have verified the report. One of them has to be lying, and so you can pressure from that standpoint as well, claiming that the CA has broken the law in verifying and the CRA by lying about it.

 

What a bunch of BS! Please Bauer, give these good people cites that correlate to each of the four â??violationsâ? of FDCPA youâ??ve indicated above? Which portion(s) of FDCPA does each violate and how? Can you back up such wild claims with case law? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

If the original creditor has no record of the debt, then the first thing to do is dispute the creditor's listing with the CRA's. (If they can't verify it, they can't report it, according to the FCRA).

Now, if the original creditor has no record of the debt, then my guess is that they sold the debt to the collection agency, making them the "real" creditor, and in this case, you can negotiate with them.

I would still try and do debt validation first with the Collection Agency. They may not be able to prove a thing to you, and in this case under section 809 of the FDCPA:

So, if they can't verify that you owe them the debt, they can't contact you to collect it, and under the FCRA, they also can't report it to the bureaus.

If this doesn't work (meaning they send you adequate proof that they own the debt), then I would try to negotiate with them as if they were the original creditor.

 

What a bunch of BS!

Ahhh Yes!!!! A great ejaculation indeed! Do you now feel better?
**************
Please Bauer, give these good people cites that correlate to each of the four â??violationsâ? of FDCPA youâ??ve indicated above? Which portion(s) of FDCPA does each violate and how?

If you are going to dispute, you must prove me wrong!
*********
Can you back up such wild claims with case law?

Good question. Can you?
*************
Inquiring minds want to know!

I am quite sure they do, so don't stand there with your mouth full of funny words, get busy.
****************
Anti-Heckler,

 

Holy Howling Hyenas Bill, the Heckler has spoken. What will ever happen to Gothom City Now?

 

Hey Heckler are you really George?

 

Batman & Robin to the rescue

They will introduce bats into his belfrey in the event the existant population.ever falls below normal.

 

Wow, I thought the questions were quite reasonable and completely with merit. But then again, they presuppose the one asked may know the answers. Instead we see subterfuge and diversion, smoke and mirrors. Typical. But is that (slight of hand) what the good folks of Gotham can expect from, the amazing, credit wrenched program?

Hummm, Iâ??ll post the questions for you again just in case you didnâ??t understand initially:

 

Hmmm! I thought that the request was reasonable enough.

Well, I think I can see the problem.

You live in over there in Gotham City, along with the joker and the penguin and lots of other buffoons. Must be tough.

We live over here in River City. We don't allow bouffoons, Hecklers, the wearing of masks and all that kind of thing.
Bad for the kiddies, you know. All that violence.

We have no need for batmobiles, bugmobiles, and all the rest of it.

So if you want to come over here, you need to learn how we do things in River City.

We treat each other with respect, not like some kind of cartoon character with a lot of silly paint on his noggin.

If we disagree with someone,we state our disagreement and our reasons for the disagreement. Then we give him a decent chance to respond. If he is again wrong, we point out where he is wrong.

We respect our fellow man enough to realize that even though he may be wrong about something, he is still a fellow man, a neighbor and maybe a good friend, but if we alienate him and make him look like a fool, then he just might become a bit unfriendly. We might end up with a flame war or worse. That would benefit no one.

So we here in River City treat folks with a whole lot more respect than those who live in Gotham City apparently do.

If you want to come over here in River City, I suggest you learn to do things the way we do them in River City.

Kinda like the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans Do."

You want to make others believe that I am wrong, then you just act like a decent human being and bring your proof along with you or else just go play in your own sandbox.

 

Billie, you mean to tell us you DONâ??T know the answers? Interesting. Maybe third time is the charm, unless of course you play victim again? Please, answer the questions:

• â?¦ give these good people cites that correlate to each of the four â??violationsâ? of FDCPA youâ??ve indicated above? Which portion(s) of FDCPA does each violate and how? Can you back up such wild claims with case law?