DV or FOAD?

[jack1212]

I have seen many posts as of late in which members report zombie debts being pursed.

 

They may or may not have documented proof that it is past the Collections SOL.

 

Some members advise to DV.

 

Other advise to send a FOAD.

 

I'd like to use this thread for a discussion on this. Lets talk about the pros and cons.

 

Maybe theres no 100% right or wrong answer, but this needs to be looked into, IMO.

 

(and before you ask, FOAD stands for F____ Off and Die. It's a letter used for time barred debts.)

 

 

Jack

[unleashedfury]

I have actually never used a FOAD letter. My curious question is are they actually successful. Thinking that if I were a JDB collecting on a debt that is just a poke and hope. Received a FOAD letter from alleged debtor. I would just sell it off to the next sucker, I mean JDB, that comes buy.

[jack1212]

Here's the letter to look at. Granted we would possibly need to reword it to suit out individual needs..

 

 

 

Junk Debt Buyer

Address

City, State Zip

 

NOT STUPID CONSUMER

address

City, State Zip

 

 

MM/DD/YYYY

 

Certified Return Receipt Mail No.: _____________

 

 

Re: Your Inquiry dated ____: your file # _____

 

 

Mr. Scumbag :

 

I received a letter from your office on (DATE) over an alleged debt from (Year)with (Alleged Creditor/Utility Company). I have no knowlege about a past due amount owed to (Alleged Creditor/Utility Company).

 

Under (ENTER YOUR STATE) State Code the subject account has a (#)year limit for filing any legal action or collection.

 

The starting date of this statute of limitations being either, the date of the last mutual activity, or the date of first default with the ORIGINAL CREDITOR of the subject account. The ORIGINAL CREDITOR being VERIZON, which you stated in your dunning letter to me dated mm/dd/yyyy.

 

This notification is formal notice to you that any filing of such action by you, or your representatives or assigns, is therefore time-barred.

 

What you are attempting to do is clear, and continued collection activities, including reporting, verification or insertion of accounts, beyond their legal collection date, to any consumer credit reporting agency, may be considered extortion and/or fraud and subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution.

 

Please note that proof of your receipt of this notice may be used by me or my legal representative in further action.

 

Since this alleged debt is clearly past the legal time frame for continued collection activity, you will cease any further contact with me.

 

You are not to sell, transfer, assign, or share any information about me or this alleged debt with anyone else.

 

 

 

TYPED NAME

 

 

As for success, it has worked for me personally...

[sherman_must_die]

People should never use that canned FOAD letter. I thought we learned that years ago?

 

I always DV with old accounts. I don't mention SOL or other statutes.

 

Least sophisticated consumer always works for me.

 

 

I really don't think a FOAD is useful. The scumbag will sell it to another scumbag even after you told them not to in the letter. Some might start reporting again and some might still file suit. Preserve your "rights" by sending a DV.

[unleashedfury]

People should never use that canned FOAD letter. I thought we learned that years ago?

 

I always DV with old accounts. I don't mention SOL or other statutes.

 

Least sophisticated consumer always works for me.

 

 

I really don't think a FOAD is useful. The scumbag will sell it to another scumbag even after you told them not to in the letter. Some might start reporting again and some might still file suit. Preserve your "rights" by sending a DV.

 

 

Ok from what I understand the FOAD letter is used only when the Reporting SOL's and Legal SOL's are expired. So if they try to sue. You could countersue. (I would find something, There is most likely violations if its this far out.) If they start reporting again they are in violation of the FCRA. Sue. The letter that Jack posted didn't slander or threaten the JDB it just explained your rights. What can they do? If the account is disputed and they sell the account. They must notify the new buyer of your dispute. If not they are in violation. A letter written very similar to that could just get them to say UMMM yeah. lets just forget this account ever exists

 

Yes a well written DV could do the same. But my question is if the debt is proven valid. Can your poking for a hope that the paperwork was lost or destroyed come back to bite ya in the bum??

[sherman_must_die]

People should never use that canned FOAD letter. I thought we learned that years ago?

 

I always DV with old accounts. I don't mention SOL or other statutes.

 

Least sophisticated consumer always works for me.

 

 

I really don't think a FOAD is useful. The scumbag will sell it to another scumbag even after you told them not to in the letter. Some might start reporting again and some might still file suit. Preserve your "rights" by sending a DV.

 

 

Ok from what I understand the FOAD letter is used only when the Reporting SOL's and Legal SOL's are expired. So if they try to sue. You could countersue.[i've rarely seen consumers countersue] (I would find something, There is most likely violations if its this far out.) If they start reporting again they are in violation of the FCRA. Sue.[ See above] The letter that Jack posted didn't slander or threaten the JDB it just explained your rights.[They know your rights] What can they do? If the account is disputed and they sell the account. They must notify the new buyer of your dispute.[How often do you think that happens?] If not they are in violation. A letter written very similar to that could just get them to say UMMM yeah. lets just forget this account ever exists. [Don't see that happening. They spent $3 on that paper and they want something to show for it.]

 

Yes a well written DV could do the same. But my question is if the debt is proven valid. Can your poking for a hope that the paperwork was lost or destroyed come back to bite ya in the bum??[i lost you with that last question. Proven valid? That it's yours regardless of age and SOL?]

[jack1212]

People should never use that canned FOAD letter. I thought we learned that years ago?

 

Here's the letter to look at. Granted we would possibly need to reword it to suit out individual needs..

[purplecharm]

Good topic.

 

I started a thread yesterday about receiving a debt settlement letter for a debt that I am almost 99.9% is out of SOL for both collecting and reporting. I questioned if I should send a DV. Someone suggested FOAD.

 

The problem is the letter is not a dunning letter and to be honest, I don't have any firm dates on the collection. I have been at my current residence since 2003 and I am pretty sure that the payday loan was taken out before I moved here. SOL in Michigan is 6 years.

 

I suspect that the reason the JDB is offering me a 85% discount off the $231.53 balance is because it's out of SOL. They probably purchased the debt for pennies on the dollar, so getting $34.73 out of an ignorant consumer is worth the cost incurred for sending the letter.

 

Now I see how the JDB make their money off the ignorant masses, because if I did not know my rights, I would have definitely jumped on their offer.

 

So in my case, should I send a FOAD letter or a DV letter, since I am not 100% sure if it's out of SOL?

 

BTW, the collection is not currently on my reports.

[jack1212]

looks like its a case by case thing.

 

If they are not reporting, you can send a DV for two reasons.

 

1. To keep them from reporting (IF it's sent in the first 30)

 

2. So they might provide evidence it's past SOL.

[iltph]

I sent a FOAD letter (not canned) to a JDB (DeKalb County Solutions) two weeks ago. They started sending letters to my wife over a month ago for a debt that is over 13 years old. She hasn't received anything from them since, but like I said it's only been two weeks.

[golfhackk72]

I don't understand why you would not use a canned letter for a FOAD letter. You are getting your point across, and if I'm at the point where I'm sending the scumbag a FOAD letter I couldn't care less if they've seen it before.

Now, for other letters I can see where you would want to reword it for your situation.

 

Am I wrong here?

[iltph]

I think this about sums it up. (taken from a post from another use on a different forum)

 

The beauty of the FOAD letter is that it comes from the heart. Feel free to express yourself in any manner you see fit. There is no right or wrong format to it. The only requirement is that you have fun writing it.

 

I just wrote a short and to the point letter and let them know that they were violating both federal and state laws and that I would take them to court if they continued.

[gweedoh]

I think in the case of a zombie debt, the best letter is a DV-FOAD hybrid letter.

 

Something like:

 

"You're attempting to collect a debt that is clearly beyond the statute of limitations for any form of legal or credit reporting collection efforts. I'm formaly notifying you that I dispute this debt, and should you chose to continue collection efforts on this debt, you must provide me with proof that I owe the debt to you.

 

Aside from that, you may not contact me for any reason at any future time."

 

This way you protect your validation rights but also put them on notice that they're trying to collect a debt that you both know is a dead end.

[Stryker]

I tend to lean towards advising folks to DV almost always. At least, at first... especially if there is a doubt to the age of the obligation.

 

Great topic... great input so far...

[Jen23514]

To me, a FOAD is nothing more than a strongly worded DV.

 

Just be sure you know what you're doing (the law of unintended consequences).

[Nevar]

I recently had a JDB start sending me letters on an account that was past both SOLs. I wasn't sure how old the debt was so I sent them a regular DV as my first correspondence. Once they proved how old it was I sent a modified FOAD. My thought is that you should only send the FOAD when you have proof positive how old the debt is. Nothing wrong with sending a DV first.

[Stryker]

To me, a FOAD is nothing more than a strongly worded DV.

 

Just be sure you know what you're doing (the law of unintended consequences).

 

 

I recently had a JDB start sending me letters on an account that was past both SOLs. I wasn't sure how old the debt was so I sent them a regular DV as my first correspondence. Once they proved how old it was I sent a modified FOAD. My thought is that you should only send the FOAD when you have proof positive how old the debt is. Nothing wrong with sending a DV first.

 

Agreed...

[jack1212]

I think in the case of a zombie debt, the best letter is a DV-FOAD hybrid letter.

 

Something like:

 

"You're attempting to collect a debt that is clearly beyond the statute of limitations for any form of legal or credit reporting collection efforts. I'm formaly notifying you that I dispute this debt, and should you chose to continue collection efforts on this debt, you must provide me with proof that I owe the debt to you.

 

Aside from that, you may not contact me for any reason at any future time."

 

This way you protect your validation rights but also put them on notice that they're trying to collect a debt that you both know is a dead end.

 

Now that i like. It covers you at both sides of the issue.

 

Kind of a combination of both letters.

[clutchcargo]

I think in the case of a zombie debt, the best letter is a DV-FOAD hybrid letter.

 

Something like:

 

"You're attempting to collect a debt that is clearly beyond the statute of limitations for any form of legal or credit reporting collection efforts. I'm formaly notifying you that I dispute this debt, and should you chose to continue collection efforts on this debt, you must provide me with proof that I owe the debt to you.

 

Aside from that, you may not contact me for any reason at any future time."

 

This way you protect your validation rights but also put them on notice that they're trying to collect a debt that you both know is a dead end.

 

Now that i like. It covers you at both sides of the issue.

 

Kind of a combination of both letters.

 

Great postage saver too!

[centex]

The key is to esure that whichever direction one goes, the letter conveys that the account is disputed. This is the only mitigation you have in the event that you receive a 1099-C. It also SHOULD serve to stop the resale of the account. The DV process is a waste of time, since I am left wiht the impression that few people would pay it even if copies of every scrap of paper associated with the account were produced.

[gweedoh]

The key is to esure that whichever direction one goes, the letter conveys that the account is disputed. This is the only mitigation you have in the event that you receive a 1099-C. It also SHOULD serve to stop the resale of the account. The DV process is a waste of time, since I am left wiht the impression that few people would pay it even if copies of every scrap of paper associated with the account were produced.

I tend to agree with this, however, CAs produce proper validation on very few debts.

 

And I'm not talking about signed, sealed and delivered either. If a CA can provide a consumer with something they obtained from the OC that provides the details of the debt, as far as I'm concerned, they've validated the debt per the FDCPA but even at this low standard, CAs can't seem to validate most disputed debts.

 

To that end, I disagree that the DV process is a waste of time. On a grander scale, I disagree that the DV process is a waste of time because of the fact that it activates other rights and protections that are otherwise non-existent.

[centex]

The key is to esure that whichever direction one goes, the letter conveys that the account is disputed. This is the only mitigation you have in the event that you receive a 1099-C. It also SHOULD serve to stop the resale of the account. The DV process is a waste of time, since I am left wiht the impression that few people would pay it even if copies of every scrap of paper associated with the account were produced.

I tend to agree with this, however, CAs produce proper validation on very few debts.

 

And I'm not talking about signed, sealed and delivered either. If a CA can provide a consumer with something they obtained from the OC that provides the details of the debt, as far as I'm concerned, they've validated the debt per the FDCPA but even at this low standard, CAs can't seem to validate most disputed debts.

 

To that end, I disagree that the DV process is a waste of time. On a grander scale, I disagree that the DV process is a waste of time because of the fact that it activates other rights and protections that are otherwise non-existent.

 

The 'waste of time' reference was specific to the topic at hand...and on zombie debt, if you weren't going to pay even with every copy and videotape, then get enough language to convey the dispute but at the same time being done with the matter. Anything else is superfluous...

[NeverQuietHere]

I like the combo letter. UNLESS you know for sure that it's way out of SOL. Then send a "Bring it on" letter. lol.

 

Really though, like Jen said, I always thought that the FOAD was basically a strong worded DV.

 

Do you send a FOAD letter to a CA when they have said on the phone call that you recorded that they can't prove how old the debt is? Or do you just DV anyway?

[jack1212]

I think it boils down to the fact of whether or not you have proof to back it up.

[NeverQuietHere]

Ok, you have it on tape that the CA (west asset) can't validate. The employee said for all she knew it was a 10 year old debt (when I asked if she even knew how old it was). She stated that she only gets our name, amount due, and that's it from BOA. Then she stated that they have to refer you back to the OC to get the info--they don't have it. Now, it is within SOL.

 

I have DV'd with a ltd cease and desist and am still getting automated calls.

 

I think in situations where the debt is 10 years old, that a FOAD is totally appropriate. When you are borderline SOL then I would say no.