Well its a response, but certainly not validation. I both faxed and mailed a validation request to RJM Acquisitions on 2/25 for one of those bogus Fingerhut accounts they're trying to collect on. I haven't hear back from them, but today in the mail I get a letter from Plaza Associates stating they are the CA for RJM, and they'll settle for 50%! I was planning on sending another validation request to Plaza, but then read Butch's letter that deals with just this situation. Would that be a better route? Should I send a nasty-gram to RJM regarding this violation (I would certainly consider this "continued collection activity)? I appreciate the advice!
Oh, and on my TU and EX reports, RJM has the balance listed as $473, Plaza's letter states the balance is $636.94.
I haven't read the post that you speak of that I can immediately recall. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. Be that as it may, Butch's posts are generally excellent to say the least so I won't discount what he posted since it may not even be pertinent to this particular situation. Rather than to make comment on Butch's post I will simply outline what I beleive to be a good strategy and that is that if you have one fish on the hook and another comes along and starts molesting the bait one should at least attempt to snare him too. If two heads are supposed to be better than one then surely two fish must also be better than one. (LOL) So what I tend to do is keep on shoving the first one down the tubes and start the second one down the same tube even though I know for sure that both fish are of the same species or gender. So I would recommend that you simply start the second agency down the path with a demand for validation also. It seems to me that the more confusion and work you can cause them the more likely they are to goof it up. I'm not one for sending any nasty letters to anybody. While it may do the soul good, it don't usually help the case at hand very much.
Thanks Bill, I think I will proceed with the validation response. But if confusing them could be a lucrative strategy, could sending them the other letter I referred to be distracting or helpful? Here's the link" Subsequent CA Letter Oh, and my idea of a nasty-gram is a professional, well worded but to the point letter stating that they're wrong, I'm right, here's the law that says so, comply or face the consequences (that's paraphrased of course). LOL
I'm only guessing, but I think the validation letter is what caused the new CA to offer 50% right from the start. Lots of times the amounts will change as the CA adds their fees to the account.
I think it's a matter of personal opinion. I think I would much rather leave that up to you and refrain from commenting on Butch's letter. I see nothing in it that I care to comment on and I do think that you should seek Butch's advice on what he thinks about whether or not you should use his letter in this instance. I really fail to see anything wrong with that either.
