Hello All, I am a new member and have come here because of my very first letter I have received from a CA The debt is not valid but the CA will never stop trying to collect and WILL put the account on my CR. So I have to establish a strategy to deal with this. I have read the entire thread on Validation and many others. Bill Bauer, Lizardking, DOC and all the others that really got into the Validation thread I say great stuff and THANKS. I as a new member I appreciate the thread and it is obviously a very important one!! Ok now to the point.............much of the discussion on Validation comes from what the heck the CRA or CA and OC has to send back to you when you send them a DV letter, IF ANYTHING AT ALL as BB states. I think it is pretty simple but a forest thru the trees syndrome ie alot of confusing "stuff" being discussed at the same time. If you specifically ASK the CA, CRA or OC for ANY and ALL written documents that CONFIRM ESTABLISH or INITIATE the debt they MUST get it!! WHY > WHY>>>>>> Ok now you say hey they do not have to send it to you and once they have it then can proceed in their collection activity. OK fine let them, but here is the one very important point. IF or WHEN you go to court and compel the CRA, CA or OC for THESE documents AND THEY do not have ENUF that CONFIRMS, ESTABLISHES and Initiates the debt then they are clearly LIABLE,,,, PERIOD and end of story. Now how many people are going to go to court? Threaten the CRA of OC or CA YES but they know it is chicken little time. So it really is a case of US vs CRA, CA and OC like Do YOU FEEL LUCKY PUNK!! DO YOU? You are putting the gun to their head and saying the above. But I think the above ALSO tells us CLEARLY how to proceed with our strategy. OK comments chew me up and spit me out!!!!!! I am not trying to be an instant EXPERT I got the above from what I read here and other credit BBs. I think that if they do not send you the written info concerning the debt then they have violated some rather basic laws. Take a look at the Fiduciary Laws in your state yes because remember our debt is an asset strange as it may seem. SKI
If CAs or JDBs choose to follow the law in collection of a legitimate debt from the actual debtor within SOL, the debtor may end up paying, either in settlement, or if taken to court. The problem is that there is a poker game going on, and there is every incentive to bluff. The older the debt, the cheaper it is to purchase, the more likely it is to be erroneous, the less likely the actual debtor is to pay it. In some cases, the debt may not be legitimate, may be fraudulent, or past SOL, or the CA or JDB may not exercise sufficient care to ensure they are collecting from the right party. They cut corners, only buy electronic records, attempt debt collection from inadequately identified consumers who may not be the debtor, sell debt already in dispute, etc. Some also cross the line farther by adding fees not allowed by the original contract, re-aging their CRA posting to apply collection pressure beyond the period allowed by law, harassing or misrepresenting the law to discourage consumers from disputing, and other illegal acts. All of these actions reduce the CA or JDB's costs, and increase collections. They also result in increased collections not only from debtors who may owe the debt, but from debtors who may have already paid the debt, as well as non-debtors who may not owe it at all, but settle to minimize financial damage, such as if a "debt" pops up while they are buying a house. Since each consumer so treated is often unaware of the pattern of illegality, they don't know the extent of the bluff. In many cases the consumer assumes that if a CA or JDB is attempting to collect from them, they must have the records to substantiate the debt they claim is owed. The amounts in collection seldom justify paying the cost of competent legal representation. It thus pays to bluff as a systematic business practice. If, occasionally, the bluff is called, the collector can usually back out with little loss, or claim they made an honest mistake. The net expectation on each bluff is always positive. Any ordinary business, that depends on attracting customers to make a profit, would long ago have collapsed or had to change if it engaged in practices routinely damaging to its customers. But CAs and JDBs don't have to attract customers, so they don't have to respond to consumer reaction to their practices. The extent of pervasive bluffing does become apparent when the accumulated quantity of complaints grows to the point of attracting regulatory attention.
