What do you make of this?

[epiphany]

HSBC has been trying to collect on a debt. A collection agency had been harrassing me and I requested debt validation and sent them a cease and desist letter about a month ago. Today I got a letter from a law firm which says the following (I am typing verbatim but cannot promise it will be free of typos )

The above-named creditor has retained our firm to collect the above identified debt. Although no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the account at this time, based on information our client provided, the amount you owe as of the date of this letter is the total above. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write this office or call 1 -800-xxx-xxxx. Our client has further informed us that you have requested it to cease and desist any further contact with you. We are required to send this "validation letter" notwithstanding your request. Your request for no further communication does not limit our client's right to invoke remedies authorized by law.

I'm confused by this letter. First of all, I sent the cease and desist and the request for validation to the collection agency, not to the creditor.

Secondly, how can this possibly be considered a validation letter when nobody from the law firm has "personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the account"????

The letter then goes on to quote just about what the dunning letter from the collection agency said...unless you dispute within 30 days in writing, blah blah blah. Does this mean I need to send yet another debt validation request to these lawyers? Actually I am just going to call my attorney tomorrow and let him handle it but I am puzzled by this "validation letter" that is not validating anything and states my right to request validation.

Insert confused emoticon here.

EP

[HHM]

Honestly...what do you hope to accomplish with the validation letter?

Frankly, unless you are prepared to sue these places for FDCPA violations, etc, you are wasting ink and trees with those letters.

I suppose you should preserve your rights by sending the debt validation letters, but you should not be up and arms when you don't get a response. A collection agencies failure to validate does not make the debt uncollectible, it only creates a cause of action against the CA if you chose to sue.

Thus, if you are going to play the FDCPA game, you need to have an end-game plan for the debt, because debt validation letters are largely useless.

[epiphany]

Honestly...what do you hope to accomplish with the validation letter?

Honestly, when I sent it it was just to stall them.

Frankly, unless you are prepared to sue these places for FDCPA violations, etc, you are wasting ink and trees with those letters.

I suppose you should preserve your rights by sending the debt validation letters, but you should not be up and arms when you don't get a response. A collection agencies failure to validate does not make the debt uncollectible, it only creates a cause of action against the CA if you chose to sue.

I wouldn't classify myself as up in arms. Just confused. Let me clarify. I am not upset at not having a validation letter in my hot little hands. However, in the letter they sent, it claims to be a validation letter and I fail to see how it could be a validation letter. Was thinking maybe I was missing something.

Thus, if you are going to play the FDCPA game, you need to have an end-game plan for the debt, because debt validation letters are largely useless.

My end-game plan is already in motion. Thanks for your reply.
EP

[ssdsco]

HSBC has been trying to collect on a debt. A collection agency had been harrassing me and I requested debt validation and sent them a cease and desist letter about a month ago. Today I got a letter from a law firm which says the following (I am typing verbatim but cannot promise it will be free of typos )

The above-named creditor has retained our firm to collect the above identified debt. Although no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the account at this time, based on information our client provided, the amount you owe as of the date of this letter is the total above. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write this office or call 1 -800-xxx-xxxx. Our client has further informed us that you have requested it to cease and desist any further contact with you. We are required to send this "validation letter" notwithstanding your request. Your request for no further communication does not limit our client's right to invoke remedies authorized by law.

I'm confused by this letter. First of all, I sent the cease and desist and the request for validation to the collection agency, not to the creditor.

Secondly, how can this possibly be considered a validation letter when nobody from the law firm has "personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the account"????

The letter then goes on to quote just about what the dunning letter from the collection agency said...unless you dispute within 30 days in writing, blah blah blah. Does this mean I need to send yet another debt validation request to these lawyers? Actually I am just going to call my attorney tomorrow and let him handle it but I am puzzled by this "validation letter" that is not validating anything and states my right to request validation.

Insert confused emoticon here.

EP

Is letter any different than the first letter you got from the CA ? Could be they ignored your DV request and sent you another copy of the initial letter they're required to send. This happened to me and it's a violation.

[epiphany]

Is letter any different than the first letter you got from the CA ? Could be they ignored your DV request and sent you another copy of the initial letter they're required to send. This happened to me and it's a violation.

Yes, it is different but not by much. It is coming from a (local) law firm instead of the (out of state) CA, and it claims to be a validation letter. I didn't put that in quotes above, that's they way it was written...with the quotation marks. It says "validation letter". It doesn't mention the CA. It does mention my cease and desist request. Other than that, there is really no difference.

I should have contacted my lawyer already but I am on call and wasn't able to. I will do that Monday. But what I am really wondering, is, am I supposed to ask (if I felt the need to ask and I don't think I do considering the timing) for another validation and is this one really bogus? I'm just really curious about how this is all supposed to work when you ask for validation as this is the only one I have asked for.... and that was just to buy me time..which it did. If one were to get a legitimate reply, what should/would it say?Hmmmmmmmm.

EP

[ssdsco]

Sounds like the debt was moved to a new CA/law firm and this is the letter they're required to send and not a DV response. From my experience and what I've read even the weakest response to a validation request will have a copy of an old monthly statement. I'd request another validation from the new law firm.

[GoingDown]

Honestly...what do you hope to accomplish with the validation letter?

Frankly, unless you are prepared to sue these places for FDCPA violations, etc, you are wasting ink and trees with those letters.

I suppose you should preserve your rights by sending the debt validation letters, but you should not be up and arms when you don't get a response. A collection agencies failure to validate does not make the debt uncollectible, it only creates a cause of action against the CA if you chose to sue.

Thus, if you are going to play the FDCPA game, you need to have an end-game plan for the debt, because debt validation letters are largely useless.

I always send them a cease and desist and dispute of the validity, and usually (not always) they give up and send it back to the junk debt buyer who then assigns it to a different collection agency. Sometimes it takes them about 8 months to assign it to a new collection agency. Other times, they are rather quick about it.

It buys time and it slows them down, and usually gets them to stop calling me on the telephone. It's worth it to me.

[HHM]

I always send them a cease and desist and dispute of the validity, and usually (not always) they give up and send it back to the junk debt buyer who then assigns it to a different collection agency. Sometimes it takes them about 8 months to assign it to a new collection agency. Other times, they are rather quick about it.

It buys time and it slows them down, and usually gets them to stop calling me on the telephone. It's worth it to me.

True, but you atleast understand how it works and have realistic expectations. Many people on this forum have unrealistic expectations about what C&D and DV letters will accomplish for them. I believe you SHOULD send the letters, I hope no one was taking my advice as being, "don't send the letters" BUT, I stress that there needs to be an end game plan for the debt itself.

[jp2861]

True, but you atleast understand how it works and have realistic expectations. Many people on this forum have unrealistic expectations about what C&D and DV letters will accomplish for them. I believe you SHOULD send the letters, I hope no one was taking my advice as being, "don't send the letters" BUT, I stress that there needs to be an end game plan for the debt itself.

The reason most have unrealistic expectations is from reading those professional debtor boards. There's a difference between a person filing BK and a person who isn't, but trying to ditch a debt.

Debt validation has a purpose, but is useless to the person that plans to file a BK. DV and C&D letters are temporary stall letters for professional debtors that want to attempt to avoid the creditor. In the end, if the creditor decides the debt is worth pursuing, they will sue, regardless of how many of these stall letters are being sent to them.

[jp2861]

HSBC has been trying to collect on a debt. A collection agency had been harrassing me and I requested debt validation and sent them a cease and desist letter about a month ago. Today I got a letter from a law firm which says the following (I am typing verbatim but cannot promise it will be free of typos )

The above-named creditor has retained our firm to collect the above identified debt. Although no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the account at this time, based on information our client provided, the amount you owe as of the date of this letter is the total above. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write this office or call 1 -800-xxx-xxxx. Our client has further informed us that you have requested it to cease and desist any further contact with you. We are required to send this "validation letter" notwithstanding your request. Your request for no further communication does not limit our client's right to invoke remedies authorized by law.

I'm confused by this letter. First of all, I sent the cease and desist and the request for validation to the collection agency, not to the creditor.

Secondly, how can this possibly be considered a validation letter when nobody from the law firm has "personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the account"????

The letter then goes on to quote just about what the dunning letter from the collection agency said...unless you dispute within 30 days in writing, blah blah blah. Does this mean I need to send yet another debt validation request to these lawyers? Actually I am just going to call my attorney tomorrow and let him handle it but I am puzzled by this "validation letter" that is not validating anything and states my right to request validation.

Insert confused emoticon here.

EP

If the letter identifies the original creditor and the amount you owe then it's enough to be considered validation. All these letters floating around the Internet with a dozen requests for validation are bogus. The CA doesn't have to validate anymore than what the law states. When you get in front of a judge you can ask for more documentaion. However, the judge will more than likely ask you if the debt is yours, if it truly is, you will lose that battle. You may be able to dispute the amount if the numbers don't add up, or they charged you more interest than your state allows. When all the smoke clears, you will be under oath to say yes or no to whether the debt is yours. There's not much to validate when you're put in that position.