VOD response

[bulldozer]

i sent a vod recently, and i got a standard response... a bill statement. my question is doesn't a collector have to identify themselves as a collector when they are corresponding with you? all i got was a copy of the bill, nothing identifying who it was from or anything, well except for the return address on the envelope they sent me (i knew they were a collector, since i have dealt with them before).

http://autarchic.tripod.com/dixon/chapter4.html

The next presentment may be a request for confirmation of your "protest" or ANY OTHER subterfuge indicating agency does not understand your demand.

The presentment may be from a different collection agency that has bought the supposed debt. The more third party intervention the better, because the weakness becomes more apparent and much harder to prove, because "the chain of evidence" is broken.

The collectors are hoping you fold and start payment or refuse as a means of forcing you to dishonor so they can win by default. If the same agency persist, return the instrument with a copy of the below stated "without dishonor" statement and a UCC 3-505.

Answer every presumed debt as if you know what you are doing. If you do not owe money or wise agency to "verify," the first presentment may be answered;

"I hereby refute the validity of your unattested presentment/claim, without dishonor, I do not owe this money." Sign, date, and write "without prejudice" UCC 1-207 on the face of the presentment demand, above your signature. Affix a certified post number to the "prima facie," which now becomes an evidence document for the trier of fact, and proves you are "express" in attempting to work out verification of the agency demand.

Mail the demand to the agent via return receipt requested.

The individual agent is on "notice" that you are not waiving any rights and you want the instrument verified.

The agent will then need to swear an oath that the presentment is a legitimate "true bill," or find another fool who will commit perjury to do so.

The Common Law does not sue out the entire state or agency, it becomes more personal and the agent must use great caution.

[bulldozer]

thanks free-martha

i guess what i am doing is looking for a way to nitpick collecters. my thought is if you the collector are going to corresponde with me, you had better dot your i's and cross your t's and not leave me any chance for me to find you violating the code. maybe i'm doing some wishful thinking, but i think it would be kinda fun dragging the collecter into small claims court everytime they make a mistake in their correspondance with me.

in regard to my previous question, i checked every piece of correspondance i have ever recieved from a collector, and they all notified me as to who they were and what they were trying to do. like i said this letter has nothing but a statement... from who may i ask?

don't collectors have to identify themselves when they corresponde with you?

if not isn't this a violation of usc15 ch 1692 3b? (doing that off the top of my head, may be the wrong code)

[seeker]

Howya?

Anyway, you already know how to reply to this. The big chink in this response from them is the lack of indentification -- I might be tempted to reply to the address with a copy of the envelope and statement, requesting an explanation of the mailing and indentification of the individual that was responsible for it's mailing. Return back to your VoD -- who, what, when, where, how -- If there was nothing but a copy of a statement -- use the "thank you for ..... which was non-responsive...." yaya. they are attempting to re-contract and hope by their lack of information, you will simply ignore (silence is acquiesence), and therefore validate their claim. Did you receive what you requested? I don't think so. So, THINK, what should you do? If they are a collector, they do need to follow the FDCPA, look for the appropriate code, and 'remind' them of it.

We been through this!!
Quit looking for the easy way! Follow through, said the professor!

Seeker

Plus it never hurts to point out that sending junk mail bills, through the mail system is acting under false pretenses, which is quite simply fraud.

Martha