In another thread the topic of bluffing collection agents (using foundations of FDCPA) to achieve credit repair came up, and took some interesting turns. Since that thread was not exclusively related to this topic, and because the issue is consistent with what many of you desire? I felt bringing the subject to itâ??s own thread was appropriate and possibly helpful (weâ??ll see). So here goes, as a continuationâ?¦ (CLICK HERE to read the original thread) Greg: I believe youâ??re misunderstanding the concepts, so forgive the length of my post? Because confusion is understandable yet avoidable by an open and rational mind, which presumably you possess. So consider the root elements and issues in that perceptive while I go into a bit of detail? Foremost, the primary reason (in context with this thread) for a consumer to cite some violation of FDCPA; using it against a collector, is with the motive of credit repair and its related benefits. Perhaps the consumer desires a mortgage, or the ability for some other credit related purchase? Consequently CBR blemishes prevent such. Credit rehabilitation is (or should be) the consumerâ??s [b[objective[/b], not to fight in court and risk an opposing judgment (attorney fees and costs). The method of attacking a reporting party (in this case a collection agent or entity) thus its CRA submission, isnâ??t at issue. How and under what circumstances that attack is engaged, certainly is. If the consumer isnâ??t prepared to actually engage litigation, then the threat is hollow and therefore a bluff! Yet there is much more at stake than preparedness, but also the consumerâ??s goal â?? the objective! Even if the collection agent committed some harmless mistake, and violated FDCPA. It is up to the consumer, NOT collection agent, to engage litigation under FDCPA. I have not stated that a collection agent would/should file suit against a consumer, based on itâ??s own alleged wrong under FDCPA. Although, filing a debt related suit as a result of a consumerâ??s actual/filed FDCPA allegation(s) isnâ??t necessarily â??retaliationâ? (and certainly NOT newsworthy). If the collector has truly done nothing wrong, all s/he need do is take a firm stand and wait for the consumer to file FDCPA based suit. In the interim and after, the collector may continue to pursue other recovery avenues. Some of those could entail engaging a recovery suit (unrelated to alleged FDCPA violation(s), which would pose an additional threat against the consumerâ??s objective. But there could be other threats to that goal equally damaging, depending on the given situation. Proponents of the bluff tactic often proclaim easy victory; seeming as though all one need do is craft letters while huffing loudly enough and voila; collection agent folds, yielding the CBR redress! The danger with this notion, aside from itâ??s over simplicity. Is that while a large percentage of collection agents do fold, equal numbers donâ??t! Determining under what circumstances a collection agent will safely cooperate, requires a degree of skill such hucksters donâ??t possess. Otherwise, itâ??s just a crap-shot, an â??accident waiting to happen!â? I find no fault, whatsoever, in consumers availing themselves to protections under FDCPA (or any other law). Where I find great worry (for consumers), however, is in blindly following the teachings of those who themselves are blind. Some of whom openly proclaim they have little knowledge, as though such were a badge of honor! Yet educated people, doctors and teachers, believe the twaddle! At present the prevailing thought by bluff advocates, is that collection agents would sooner settle than fight. The idea being that due to expense of defense, itâ??s more cost-effective for a collection agent to yield. Not only is this notion inaccurate by its implied guarantee, but the collection industry mood is changing! Many ACA members for example, are now banding together to oppose the bluff strategy. Certainly if a collection agent breaks FDCPA then so be it, they should suffer the penalty! But if only unintentional mistakes are done, and a consumer views these as major hammers? That consumer should think twice about reliance upon flawed notions that bluff is king, and the win is assured! Unquestionably Congress enacted FDCPA to be available within grasp of consumers. Correspondingly, it also has made it clear that one who abuses that privilege should suffer consequences. Therefore, the issue isnâ??t necessarily whose right or wrong. But to what extent the consumer is willing to gamble his/her OBJECTIVE (credit repair and all that entails), by inappropriately pushing the bluff button.