Jump to content

"Don't pay them a dime"


The last post in this topic was posted 1698 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine sent me a message asking if the following was true (it was originally a screen shot, but I typed it out). Apparently this is floating around the internet. Can someone help me to explain to her why it isn't or more so simply why this isn't a valid reason for deletion?

 

Thank you :-)

 

"If your original creditor sold your debt to a collection agency, they also wrote off your debit on their taxes which wrote off your obligation to pay. You can dispute the transaction via dispute.transunion.com (along with any other collection agency owned items lingering on your report). Your dispute reason is "contract was cancelled" and write "NO CONTRACT" in the dispute comments. I have cleared THOUSANDS off my own report and have been working to help my friends and family do the same for FREE! Peach and love to all1 Knowledge is power! :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

Edited by ClaimJumper
Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

The theory is that only a person with a personal knowledge about the debt should validate/authenticate the debt. It's practically impossible for the JDB to prove the many points it raises. So JDBs now claim that a statement from the OC is enough to validate based on some case ruling I can't recall now. But the letter is one of the many weapons which can still work against JDBs if properly used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A debt is a legally enforceable contract. Your creditor can't write off money they didn't receive they can only write off their expenses. Written off is an internal book keeping term. They would much rather have the tax obligation incurred by your holding up your end of the contract which they have determined is not worth their effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A debt is a legally enforceable contract. Your creditor can't write off money they didn't receive they can only write off their expenses. Written off is an internal book keeping term. They would much rather have the tax obligation incurred by your holding up your end of the contract which they have determined is not worth their effort.

This is simply a sort of nut case letter questioning the standing of the JDB to ask for debt payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

The theory is that only a person with a personal knowledge about the debt should validate/authenticate the debt. It's practically impossible for the JDB to prove the many points it raises. So JDBs now claim that a statement from the OC is enough to validate based on some case ruling I can't recall now. But the letter is one of the many weapons which can still work against JDBs if properly used.

100% of CA's (and JDB's) lie 100% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

 

There's a lot of misinformation on the web. One of the worst is the notion that writing off a debt cancels or reduces the debtor's obligation. It doesn't. Not even a little bit.

 

However, creditors in these situations will often settle an account for far less than the total debt and if both parties agree on terms that does cancel the entire debt. Should the debtor subsequently come into money the creditor has no further claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine sent me a message asking if the following was true (it was originally a screen shot, but I typed it out). Apparently this is floating around the internet. Can someone help me to explain to her why it isn't or more so simply why this isn't a valid reason for deletion?

 

Thank you :-)

 

"If your original creditor sold your debt to a collection agency, they also wrote off your debit on their taxes which wrote off your obligation to pay. You can dispute the transaction via dispute.transunion.com (along with any other collection agency owned items lingering on your report). Your dispute reason is "contract was cancelled" and write "NO CONTRACT" in the dispute comments. I have cleared THOUSANDS off my own report and have been working to help my friends and family do the same for FREE! Peach and love to all1 Knowledge is power! :)

 

 

 

 

So I could be legit? I don't want her to try this method for it to come back and bite her in the end. If it was this easy I'd think everyone would do this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ughhhh,,, NO.

 

When an "Original Creditor" sells a debt to a "Collection Agency" they also transfer their legal rights to collect that debt through any and all legal means.

 

What the original creditor "Writes Off" on their taxes is irrelevant. This doesn't relieve the borrower from the legal obligation they willingly agreed to when they borrowed the money in the first place. :rofl:

 

A cursory reading of all the grammatical/spelling errors in the "Screenshot" you typed out should tell you that the thing you've seen "Floating around the Internet" is really no different than a claim that the Easter Bunny/Santa Claus is real,,, LOL... :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

 

There's a lot of misinformation on the web. One of the worst is the notion that writing off a debt cancels or reduces the debtor's obligation. It doesn't. Not even a little bit.

 

However, creditors in these situations will often settle an account for far less than the total debt and if both parties agree on terms that does cancel the entire debt. Should the debtor subsequently come into money the creditor has no further claim.

 

The letter is valid but they are focusing on the wrong point. The most important point is, "a person with the original knowledge" not the tax write off. This is what federal and state laws require for the authentication of a debt. Often time JDBs lack personal knowledge about the debt they are trying to collect making it almost impossible to prove the debt is valid. This is the issue the language in that quote is trying to raise and it's a legitimate issue supported by federal and sate laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A friend of mine sent me a message asking if the following was true (it was originally a screen shot, but I typed it out). Apparently this is floating around the internet. Can someone help me to explain to her why it isn't or more so simply why this isn't a valid reason for deletion?

 

Thank you :-)

 

"If your original creditor sold your debt to a collection agency, they also wrote off your debit on their taxes which wrote off your obligation to pay. You can dispute the transaction via dispute.transunion.com (along with any other collection agency owned items lingering on your report). Your dispute reason is "contract was cancelled" and write "NO CONTRACT" in the dispute comments. I have cleared THOUSANDS off my own report and have been working to help my friends and family do the same for FREE! Peach and love to all1 Knowledge is power! :)

 

 

 

 

So I could be legit? I don't want her to try this method for it to come back and bite her in the end. If it was this easy I'd think everyone would do this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ughhhh,,, NO.

 

When an "Original Creditor" sells a debt to a "Collection Agency" they also transfer their legal rights to collect that debt through any and all legal means.

 

What the original creditor "Writes Off" on their taxes is irrelevant. This doesn't relieve the borrower from the legal obligation they willingly agreed to when they borrowed the money in the first place. :rofl:

 

A cursory reading of all the grammatical/spelling errors in the "Screenshot" you typed out should tell you that the thing you've seen "Floating around the Internet" is really no different than a claim that the Easter Bunny/Santa Claus is real,,, LOL... :grin:

 

OCs never sell individual debts when it comes to CC accounts. They sell a 'Portfolio of accounts". They merely sell a list. The OP is raising the wrong issue. The issue that should be debated is whether the JDB has standing to require payment or can authenticate the debt they claim they own. I has been a daunting task for them and it will remain so for a foreseeable future...I think we are debating the wrong issue due to OP lack of understanding of the language on that statement. Again the statement raise the issue of "lack of personal knowledge" by the debt collector. That is a valid issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A friend of mine sent me a message asking if the following was true (it was originally a screen shot, but I typed it out). Apparently this is floating around the internet. Can someone help me to explain to her why it isn't or more so simply why this isn't a valid reason for deletion?

 

Thank you :-)

 

"If your original creditor sold your debt to a collection agency, they also wrote off your debit on their taxes which wrote off your obligation to pay. You can dispute the transaction via dispute.transunion.com (along with any other collection agency owned items lingering on your report). Your dispute reason is "contract was cancelled" and write "NO CONTRACT" in the dispute comments. I have cleared THOUSANDS off my own report and have been working to help my friends and family do the same for FREE! Peach and love to all1 Knowledge is power! :)

 

 

So I could be legit? I don't want her to try this method for it to come back and bite her in the end. If it was this easy I'd think everyone would do this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ughhhh,,, NO.

 

When an "Original Creditor" sells a debt to a "Collection Agency" they also transfer their legal rights to collect that debt through any and all legal means.

 

What the original creditor "Writes Off" on their taxes is irrelevant. This doesn't relieve the borrower from the legal obligation they willingly agreed to when they borrowed the money in the first place. :rofl:

 

A cursory reading of all the grammatical/spelling errors in the "Screenshot" you typed out should tell you that the thing you've seen "Floating around the Internet" is really no different than a claim that the Easter Bunny/Santa Claus is real,,, LOL... :grin:

 

Some of those typos are mine lol. Was sneaking to post while at the office.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

 

There's a lot of misinformation on the web. One of the worst is the notion that writing off a debt cancels or reduces the debtor's obligation. It doesn't. Not even a little bit.

 

However, creditors in these situations will often settle an account for far less than the total debt and if both parties agree on terms that does cancel the entire debt. Should the debtor subsequently come into money the creditor has no further claim.

 

The letter is valid but they are focusing on the wrong point. The most important point is, "a person with the original knowledge" not the tax write off. This is what federal and state laws require for the authentication of a debt. Often time JDBs lack personal knowledge about the debt they are trying to collect making it almost impossible to prove the debt is valid. This is the issue the language in that quote is trying to raise and it's a legitimate issue supported by federal and sate laws.

 

 

I was addressing the bolded portion of the statement which is factually incorrect.

 

As for requiring a collector to provide "a person with the original knowledge" in order to continue to try to collect, they do not have to do that prior to presenting a case in court. Also, that is not always a requirement. For one thing the person with original knowledge may not be working there. They might even be dead. A creditor will have to provide evidence that the debt is valid and a person with original knowledge is certainly one way. It is not the only one.

Edited by cashnocredit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, asking them to authenticate by providing account payment history of the alleged debt including payments made on the alleged debt/service is USUALLY something they can't do... Often, even the OC doesn't keep those records, all they have is the final bill.

 

A new trick I found, check your state civil code, sometimes there is extremely specific language they are REQUIRED to include in their letters, and if they don't, they are violating the law(s) of your state. For example, I live in California-

 

The California FDBPA also requires disclosure by the collector to the consumer as to whether the statute of limitations on the purchased debt in question has, or has not, expired; if expired, the debt purchaser must disclose as follows:
“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, [insert name of debt buyer] may [continue to] report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting.”
I asked a lawyer who does credit counseling(and bankruptcies), and he said the notice HAS to contain that info, if it doesn't, send a notice to them they are in violation of the law.
“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency.”
Wording has to be EXACT
See CA Civil Code 1788.52
I just got a letter from a CC AND the OC after disputing, they both sent me a copy of a "final bill" and said the alleged debt was valid, completely ignoring the rest of the dispute letter...
Yay another $13 for CMRR to tell them both to research their stuff and quit violating the law....
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

 

There's a lot of misinformation on the web. One of the worst is the notion that writing off a debt cancels or reduces the debtor's obligation. It doesn't. Not even a little bit.

 

However, creditors in these situations will often settle an account for far less than the total debt and if both parties agree on terms that does cancel the entire debt. Should the debtor subsequently come into money the creditor has no further claim.

 

The letter is valid but they are focusing on the wrong point. The most important point is, "a person with the original knowledge" not the tax write off. This is what federal and state laws require for the authentication of a debt. Often time JDBs lack personal knowledge about the debt they are trying to collect making it almost impossible to prove the debt is valid. This is the issue the language in that quote is trying to raise and it's a legitimate issue supported by federal and sate laws.

 

 

I was addressing the bolded portion of the statement which is factually incorrect.

 

As for requiring a collector to provide "a person with the original knowledge" in order to continue to try to collect, they do not have to do that prior to presenting a case in court.

 

I got your point. This is a kind of Nut case or Jack attack letter throwing everything to the JDB and waiting to see what would stick. Also the bolded portion talks about TAX write off not debt write off. as Crist tried to explain. As for "personal knowledge", the law requires that the person who authenticates/validates a debt must have personal/intimate knowledge gained in the course of his/her everyday business dealings. So the requirement is not to provide "a person with the original knowledge" but to "have" a personal knowledge about the debt they claim they owe. Most JDBs cannot pass this test and that's why they fold in court. The language in that statement has worked for many disputers and can still work

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Basically, asking them to authenticate by providing account payment history of the alleged debt including payments made on the alleged debt/service is USUALLY something they can't do... Often, even the OC doesn't keep those records, all they have is the final bill.

 

A new trick I found, check your state civil code, sometimes there is extremely specific language they are REQUIRED to include in their letters, and if they don't, they are violating the law(s) of your state. For example, I live in California-

 

The California FDBPA also requires disclosure by the collector to the consumer as to whether the statute of limitations on the purchased debt in question has, or has not, expired; if expired, the debt purchaser must disclose as follows:
“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, [insert name of debt buyer] may [continue to] report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting.”
I asked a lawyer who does credit counseling(and bankruptcies), and he said the notice HAS to contain that info, if it doesn't, send a notice to them they are in violation of the law.
“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency.”
Wording has to be EXACT
See CA Civil Code 1788.52
I just got a letter from a CC AND the OC after disputing, they both sent me a copy of a "final bill" and said the alleged debt was valid, completely ignoring the rest of the dispute letter...
Yay another $13 for CMRR to tell them both to research their stuff and quit violating the law....

 

 

The FDCPA does not require anything more than that and the "We won't sue you if out of SOL" wording only applies to debts that are out of SOL. But you are free to assert whatever you wish. They are free to ignore anything beyond what the law requires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that should be debated is whether the JDB has standing to require payment or can authenticate the debt they claim they own. I has been a daunting task for them and it will remain so for a foreseeable future

 

 

Good point Sir. :wave:

 

At the end of the day, these JDB's are "Attempting to Collect" debt obligations the OC's have already decided are a "Lost Cause", (and therefore they're no longer willing to "Spend Good Money Chasing a Lost Cause").

 

If the JDB, has "No Skin In the Game" they will probably tend to be "Sloppy" on documentation, (since ANY money they manage to collect is "Found Money".

 

I suppose the question is if these JDB's actually paid real money for a portfolio of defaulted CC accounts, (or just has an agreement to pay a percentage of collected defaults to the OC)?

 

I wonder what the business model is for these JDB's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

 

There's a lot of misinformation on the web. One of the worst is the notion that writing off a debt cancels or reduces the debtor's obligation. It doesn't. Not even a little bit.

 

However, creditors in these situations will often settle an account for far less than the total debt and if both parties agree on terms that does cancel the entire debt. Should the debtor subsequently come into money the creditor has no further claim.

 

The letter is valid but they are focusing on the wrong point. The most important point is, "a person with the original knowledge" not the tax write off. This is what federal and state laws require for the authentication of a debt. Often time JDBs lack personal knowledge about the debt they are trying to collect making it almost impossible to prove the debt is valid. This is the issue the language in that quote is trying to raise and it's a legitimate issue supported by federal and sate laws.

 

 

I was addressing the bolded portion of the statement which is factually incorrect.

 

As for requiring a collector to provide "a person with the original knowledge" in order to continue to try to collect, they do not have to do that prior to presenting a case in court.

 

I got your point. This is a kind of Nut case or Jack attack letter throwing everything to the JDB and waiting to see what would stick. Also the bolded portion talks about TAX write off not debt write off. as Crist tried to explain. As for "personal knowledge", the law requires that the person who authenticates/validates a debt must have personal/intimate knowledge gained in the course of his/her everyday business dealings. So the requirement is not to provide "a person with the original knowledge" but to "have" a personal knowledge about the debt they claim they owe. Most JDBs cannot pass this test and that's why they fold in court. The language in that statement has worked for many disputers and can still work

 

Yep. Nut case letters do often work. JDB's typically only have a limited number of debts they can get OC verification for without paying extra money. They play the odds. Sometimes being a PITA works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's worth keeping in mind that JDBs, when they sue, mostly operate on the basis that few will fight and show up in court. Like a house burglar, they will go with the easy money and simple path. The more legit collectors will have their ducks lined up for at least some of the suits. The CFPB audits the larger ones and if they just sue all the time without docs they may get sanctioned. To the extent the CFPB cleans up the debt collection biz, nutcase letter approaches will succeed less often. And that's how it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I was saving a bunch of verification letters I was finding across the internet. One of them contains language that fits the tax scenario...

 

"Due to possible inaccuracies in these reports, I demand that the validation I hereby request be in the form of a verified statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt, who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of a returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have ben payable."

 

I guess the theory is that part of the debt was paid in some way shape or form, and therefore the actual amount owed is in dispute. Seems like a stretch.

 

If this approach has worked for people, maybe it's because it's viewed as a nut-ball letter and the creditor doesn't want to deal with them.

 

Nothing tells the reader more quickly or more clearly that you copied and pasted a letter you found on the Internet than the word "hereby."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing tells the reader more quickly or more clearly that you copied and pasted a letter you found on the Internet than the word "hereby."

That's why I re-write any model letter in language that feels natural for me. Subsequent letters then seem more authentic, and they can't immediately Google my words to see I'm active in the online credit repair process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 1698 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      182,757
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Carmelle864
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines