Re: Validation letter No, Greg, it is not a panacea of any kind. It is not a magic silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination. To the best of my knowledge this business about validation letters was started a long time ago in another venue entirely. Another gentleman then found out about it and brought it into this forum and possibly others. He added a lot to the original letter and posted it on this board many times. I picked up on it and made changes that I believe are for the better, but as far as my having transformed it into any kind of magical bullet, forget it. Didn't happen, Still other people have probably taken either the original or the one posted by the other gentleman on this forum and changed it in still other ways that they thought better. All of them seem to have just about the same general level of effectiveness in getting the job done, all of the verbal fisticuffs, hate and discontent over whose version was better that arose aside. It is the same with all the rest of the hate and discontent going on here. When it's all said and done, it will only matter who or what gets the job done the most often. All the rest will fall by the wayside and be forgotten about. And the sooner the better. It's not about validation letters, it's not about many of the other things that we see posted here from time to time that counts. It's about having a concentrated plan of action that is well thought out and planned and is implemented in an orderly and organized manner by someone who is willing to take the time to address the customer's needs when the customer needs attention or feels the need for attention and to do so at a reasonable price. Day or night, and at least 3 hundred and some odd days a year. It's about good business practices as usual. It sure isn't about who can throw the meanest and rudest insults at the other fellow.
Re: A question, please? Guys, as much as I hate to butt into a good fight, I have a question for any and all of you: how much, if any, does the FDCPA apply to an original creditor? I know it's usually used against a third pary CA, but what if an original creditor is taking a proverbial dump on a consumer? For example, offering a "hardship" program for a customer who's behind at a 29.99% interest rate?! Sounds like a plan to MAKE more hardship than to alleviate it. I could handle the payments if they would get reasonable with the interest rate, like some others have. What's scary is that it's also getting near the 180-day mark and I REALLY don't want a chargeoff. Any advice from anyone will be appreciated.
Re: A question, please? WHY DIDN'T YOU ASK FOR THE 41.99% "HARDSHIP RATE"??? A more logical "HARDSHIP RATE" would be 1.90% !!!!!!!!!!
Re: A question, please? ...MORE...if I was given 1.99%...I would make every effort to pay as soon as possible...if I was given a 29.99% rate...I WOULD NOT TRY AS HARD... IF YOU DO THE MATH...ALMOST ALL THE PAYMENT GOES TOWARD INTEREST...ALMOST NOTHING TO PRINCIPLE... I USED A MORTGAGE PAYMENT SCHEDULE (AMORTIZATION)... YOU OWE $10,000------>PAY OVER $30,000 @ 29.99% (10 YEARS)... YOU OWE $10,000------>PAY ABOUT $11,000 @ 1.99% (10 YEARS)...BUT MINIMUM PAYMENT PROBABLY WOULD MEAN YOU COULD PAY IT OFF IN 3-6 YEARS...
Re: A question, please? Original creditors are not bound by the same rules as collection agencies are. Collection agencies are considered to be "3rd party collectors." As usual, everyone in business is not as familiar with the law as some others are. They are in their line of business to make money and to try to survive while breaking the least amount of laws possible. Most businesses are in business to do business and not to get into legal battles. If they are reputable businesses they feel a need for the services of a 3rd party collector so they don't have to get into all that nasty stuff. But if they are drug into it, then they usually try to follow what they have heard or know to be the law even if they don't have to obey it because the particular law in question does not apply to them. They usually realize that the laws are there for the protection of all who obey the law and so in order to be fair they will usually do all they can to stay within the law if it might turn out to have a bearing on their business. And so they will usually try to go along with the demands for proof of the indebtedness by the consumer rather than fight about it if they possibly can whether they must do so by law or not. Some will balk about it, saying they no longer have the records or they have sold the debt to the collection agency or whatever. I use my standard validation letter in both cases for the simple reason of convenience. When I send one to an original creditor who has referred the account to a 3rd party collector, I'm not really out to get him in most cases. All I really want from the original creditor who has sold or referred the debt is the true story as to who currently owns the debt so that I have more information as to how to proceed with whatever the outcome may be. I want to know the true likelihood that the 3rd party can or cannot prove the validity of the debt and that is about all I care about. Then I can make a better judgement as to how hard I can push the 3rd party collector. If I find out that the 3rd party collector hasn't a crying chance of proving the debt then I know that I can push just about as hard as I want with a great chance of success. If he can prove the debt and do it pretty easily, then I know that I am going to have to be a lot more careful in how I proceed. Regardless of what one may be lead to believe reading these posts flying back and forth, huff, puff and bluff isn't always the right answer and it also isn't a very accurate description of what actually does or can take place. It's just a convenient description of what happen in some cases and in others cannot be considered as logical at all. As another person has pointed out so many times, huff and bluff applied at the wrong time and upon the wrong person can be a sure road to disaster and one which the practician thereof had better be well prepared to handle in the event one misjudges his opponent.
Re: A question, please? Greg: The "disaster" that I spoke of could take any one of several forms. One would be that the creditor or collection agency simply refuses to answer any further questions or letters from you leaving you in a position of either having to just forget about the whole matter or go to court and sue him if you do happen to have any grounds upon which a suit can be successfully filed and won or it can take the form that the creditor or collecter gets mad at you and sues you for a deficiency judgement. Even if they do sue you for deficiency judgement, that's not necessarily the end of the line if you know how to proceed in court after the judgement is granted. Knowing how to proceed after judgement is granted takes a good knowledge of the law as it pertains to judgements. You don't have to be a lawyer, you just have to know the laws dealing with judgements and what it takes to perfect one.
Re: A question, please? Anthony is correct about what the law states in regards to what is required by the collector for validation. THe validation letter is effective in letting them know that you will not settle for anything that does not prove that you or obligated to pay them one RED $CENT$.. Many of them don't respond because they dont have to or because they just dont find it cost effective. Now, here is where you get them. There lack of proving that you owe the debt puts the CRA in a bad position. ON one hand the CRA wants to report whatever their customers report to them. ON the on the other hand they do not want to report false and misleading information. This is where you "Joe consumer" can nail the collector and the CRA to the wall. They need to prove somehow that you owe the debt. This could be a contract or some substantial proof that you have agreed to do business with them. The problem here is that most cant prove a thing. Maybe one out 20 will and those are the ones you need to work in a different manner than most.. YOU may be asking yourself "Why do they need to prove it?". The reason behind their need to prove it is quite simple. Do they want to risk a litigation? Most will fold and that is how it works. NO special magic or letters necessary. Just a plain and simple request for validation. Some will try to fool you and tell you that their initial dunn stated all the necessary information. Some will printout screenshots of accounting screens with alleged numbers that they say prove you owe them something. It is all just a bunch of bull for the most part and you better get used to shoveling it if you take on the task of credit repair....
Re: A question, please? Let me just amply on Godaddyo's excellent post just a little. I think it sufficient to add that if they do decide to file motion for summary judgement and you decide to go fight it, they are going to have to prove the debt in no uncertain terms anyway. Nuff said. Good post Gdaddyo
