How should I go about this? My mom has a qvc account and placed an order awhile ago, maybe a year or so, well she never did receive the merchandise, for whatever reason, and totally forgot about it and this past week a letter comes in from a Collection agency stating she owes them money. She does remember making the order and is pretty sure that QVC has proof, but she didnt receive any merchandise from that order and totally forgot about it and now its in the collection agencies hands, what should she do? How should she approach this?
CA---"SORRY YOU CAN'T COLLECT FOR MERCHANDISE THAT WAS NEVER RECEIVED...HAD I RECEIVED THE MERCHANDISE, I WOULD HAVE PAID FOR IT...TAKE IT UP WITH QVC"
Re: Re: what would you do? My take would be a slightly different. "Dear CA, I never heard of you before, nor of QVC. I never placed any order from QVC. There must be an error!" It's then up to the collection agency to provide proof. Make them work for their money UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES TALK TO THEM ON THE PHONE -- THEY WILL HAVE YOU ADMITTING THAT YOU OWE THEM MONEY IN NO TIME, even if you really do not.
Re: Re: what would you do? just have her send a VAL letter. Since the CA can't provide proof she actually recieved the merchandise, they can't validate. Meanwhile, if the CA reports to a CRA that opens the CRA up to a $1000 suit.
Re: Re: Re: what would you do? I would think hard before doing the above because the CA may very well come up with the proof. If there was only one order then it wouldn't be too hard for them to validate it. If they do valadate then you're gonna look pretty desperate when you switch your story to "Oh... well... I did order that, but I never actually received it" I'm not sure how QVC ships, but most likely they have some sort of tracking number and/or delivery confirmation. I'd try to make them go back and find that info to verify that you never got the item. HTH, Brett
Re: Re: Re: Re: what would you do? You are assuming that the CA can come up with the proof easily -- which is a BIG IF. I'd not want to make it any easier for the CA than it should be. I'd not worry about "looking desperate" ... I'd cross that bridge when it comes to that. Looks do not matter squat; hard proof does Look at the popular wisdom on this net with regards to getting negative tradelines off CRA reports -- the advice is to first dispute it as "not mine", then if they verify, ask for verification procedures; if the verification procedures check out then dispute the tradeline as "wrong balance", then as "wrong status", then as "wrong date" etc ... The approach I'm suggesting is no different than the above. First deny any knowledge of the order. IF AND WHEN the CA provides proof that the order was indeed placed, then dispute the receipt of the merchandise. IF AND WHEN they provide proof of the receipt, then dispute the amount charged, etc. etc... If the CA wants money, make them work for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what would you do? I agree with you that normally a CA will have a hard time coming up with proof, but I think this case may be different because it's a single order with QVC. With a credit card the CA would have to come up with the original contract, all of the statements, records of charges and payments, etc. In this case, they need to come up with the one phone order. You may be right that they won't even be able to produce this, but I'm thinking that chances are better than normal that they will. I also agree with you that it doesn't matter how you look to the CA... they need to provide proof whether you look like a complete fool or not. I was thinking more about what would happen if this went to court... you wouldn't want them to be able to say to the judge... "First they denied knowledge of the charge, then when we provided that they denied that they recieved the package, then when we provided that they denied..... " In reality I think it's very unlikely that a $200 matter would ever make it to court, but there may be other people with similiar problems out there with a higher dollar amount. In the end, it's up to tryinhard to decide what to do, and I don't think that your advice is wrong, but I do think that in this case it might not be the best option. Brett
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what would you do? Brett, I see you say that it's not the best option to try to get the debt validated in case they can actually come up with proof because of the phone call order, but if I dont send a letter of validation what would you suggest? I am totally lost on this one. thanks
<< 1*Brett: You are assuming that the CA can come up with the proof easily -- which is a BIG IF. lakpr =============== 1*It sure is especially when a CA can't validate 95 to 99 % of the time. Also you should never pay an unvalidated debt so as to preserve your consumer rites. >> THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
< I agree with you that normally a CA will have a hard time coming up with proof, but I think this case may be different because it's a single order with QVC. With a credit card the CA would have to come up with the original contract, all of the statements, records of charges and payments, etc. In this case, they need to come up with the one phone order. You may be right that they won't even be able to produce this, but 1*I'm thinking that chances are better than normal that they will. Brett ============ So what you still have the right to demand proof. >>Subject: Said It Better Than I could The Ten Commandments display was removed Wednesday from the Alabama Supreme Court building. There was a good reason for the move. You can't post Thou Shalt Not Steal in a building full of Lawyers and Politicians without creating a hostile work environment. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >> THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
1*Brett, I see you say that it's not the best option to try to get the debt validated in case they can actually come up with proof because of the phone call order, but 2*if I don't send a letter of validation what would you suggest? 3*I am totally lost on this one. thanks tryinhard ============== 1*Lets find out if they can or can't -The only way to do that is validate. 2*The validation letter is the starting point.How do you start with out a starter? 3*Follow the validation path, You're lost because you're off the path. >> Subject: Said It Better Than I could The Ten Commandments display was removed Wednesday from the Alabama Supreme Court building. There was a good reason for the move. You can't post Thou Shalt Not Steal in a building full of Lawyers and Politicians without creating a hostile work environment. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >> THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
