4 ms·

I doubt that would go over well. He could have simply stuck to asking for proof before paying and that might have been the end of it.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
I doubt it. The nature of debt collection, and many other legal pickles is that if you are seen to be passively ignoring it, then it just ramps up. Merely asking for proof is indistinguishable from ignoring claims because it leaves no paper trail. You have to actually get documents from them (or from a court) saying that they have no claim. And it costs a lot (whether in time, money or both) to get that.
- chopin 9y ago
  In Germany it would have been sufficient to ask for proof in writing with a return receipt. There's your paper trail. If they insist after that, threaten criminal charges. This worked wonders for me in the past. Additionally, loser pays (unfortunately, not for my time, though). This would never go to court. But you can't ignore it, that's true.
- manarth 9y ago
  > You have to actually get documents from them > (or from a court) saying that they have no claim. Naturally this varies in different jurisdictions, but generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I say that you owe me money, it's not necessary for you to obtain documents (from either me or from a court) stating that you don't owe me money - the onus is on me to _prove_ that you me money.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    Why would the burden of proof be on the person in debt? How do you prove a negative?
    - manarth 9y ago
      Apologies, perhaps my post wasn't clear - I agree, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (i.e. claiming that someone owes them a debt), rather than the person supposedly in debt.
      - colejohnson66 9y ago
        Actually, it’s my fault. I was agreeing with you in the form of a question
- 35bge57dtjku 9y ago
  Asking for evidence of the debt is hardly ignoring it.

adrianratnapala 9y ago

I doubt it. The nature of debt collection, and many other legal pickles is that if you are seen to be passively ignoring it, then it just ramps up. Merely asking for proof is indistinguishable from ignoring claims because it leaves no paper trail. You have to actually get documents from them (or from a court) saying that they have no claim. And it costs a lot (whether in time, money or both) to get that.

chopin 9y ago
In Germany it would have been sufficient to ask for proof in writing with a return receipt. There's your paper trail. If they insist after that, threaten criminal charges. This worked wonders for me in the past. Additionally, loser pays (unfortunately, not for my time, though). This would never go to court. But you can't ignore it, that's true.
manarth 9y ago
> You have to actually get documents from them > (or from a court) saying that they have no claim. Naturally this varies in different jurisdictions, but generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I say that you owe me money, it's not necessary for you to obtain documents (from either me or from a court) stating that you don't owe me money - the onus is on me to _prove_ that you me money.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Why would the burden of proof be on the person in debt? How do you prove a negative?
  - manarth 9y ago
    Apologies, perhaps my post wasn't clear - I agree, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (i.e. claiming that someone owes them a debt), rather than the person supposedly in debt.
    - colejohnson66 9y ago
      Actually, it’s my fault. I was agreeing with you in the form of a question
35bge57dtjku 9y ago
Asking for evidence of the debt is hardly ignoring it.