6 ms·

In most states, this alleged debt would be outside the statute of limitations for contract originated debt (usually 6 years from day of default). Meaning that,

In most states, this alleged debt would be outside the statute of limitations for contract originated debt (usually 6 years from day of default). Meaning that, unless you pay any amount to them, it is no longer a debt that can be pursued through legal channels. With any debt collector or buyer, per FDCPA, they must stop calling if you notify them. Best way to do this is by a certified letter stating your name, your phone numbers, and that it is not permitted to call you regarding this alleged debt. Offenses here can net you a bounty in court, but worth noting most folks with valid debts, can't afford to fight the onslaught of robocalls from spoofed numbers, as is all too common in the trade Requesting validity of a debt is also covered under FDCPA, but with some general stipulations. Legally, a collector or debt buyer is required to provide validation in the 30 days after the initial notification to you if requested in writing. Most will still send documentation out of this window if they have it, but it becomes less transparent under your civil protections for them to be mandated to do so. Obligatory IANAL, but if you find yourself in a similar position here, doing a few minutes of research on your protections and common "gotchas" of dealing with these outfits is incredibly valuable.

rectang 6y ago
That such heroics are necessary to stave off illegitimate claims is utterly infuriating.
- cwojno 6y ago
  Agreed. This is 100% unfair to the innocent.
- roenxi 6y ago
  What part of the process don't you like? It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. It sucks for those who end up on a list due to mistakes - but there isn't going to be a scenario where that doesn't happen however the system is set up. Unless paying back debt is done on an honour system I suppose. Corporations dedicated to, essentially, harassment is much better than the first obvious alternative, which is having officials involved. If the police think you've done the wrong thing they generally won't be dissuaded by a certified letter.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    The alternative is what's done already: debt score penalty. And demanding payment for debts without harassment. It's not hard.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > And demanding payment for debts without harassment. That'll look pretty much the same as what they are doing now. People who take money on the basis that they will do a thing in the future should then do the thing. If they can decide not to do the thing and walk away with the money then the situation gets a bit silly. Persistently asking for the money back is about as mild a recourse as possible. The hoop-jumping to make them stop is horrible for people who get caught up by mistake, but is not that terrible. The alternative is magistrates and lawsuits. That would be much worse. Getting into to a fight with the tax office when they mistakenly think you owe them money would be much worse.
      - arp242 6y ago
        The problem isn't that they're asking for payments, it's that they're demanding payments when they don't actually have any evidence that any are due, which is why they simply disappear when asked for any evidence, for a while anyway. The problem is 1) when people act in good faith and assume the debt is actually real and just pay, 2) people who might be afraid that things escalate and pay to "avoid trouble", and 3) the fear that it might negatively affect your credit score. The power imbalance is very real. When a debt collecting agency sends you a bill, this is essentially it's an accusation that you didn't fulfil your responsibilities and duties. I don't know about you, but I tend to make pretty darn sure that I'm right when I accuse of someone, especially if it's a very specific accusation. While mistakes can surely be made with the best of efforts, it's the debt collector's responsibility to correct any, rather than just shrug and ignore any rebuttals. Of course, that's not in their financial interests (quite a few debt collecting agencies "buy" outstanding bills and try to make a profit from collecting them). It's not my responsibility to prove I don't need to pay something; the burden of proof is completely reversed; eBay has been harassing me for years for an £18 alleged "debt" where I have already explained in great detail and with great patience why it's erroneous, but they don't listen: they simply don't reply and then send a new message as if I'm talking to a wall. I had to block a whole bunch of email addresses and phone numbers, instead. > The alternative is magistrates and lawsuits. "Oops, sorry, looks like I don't actually have a bill from AT&T which says you owe anything!"

rectang 6y ago

That such heroics are necessary to stave off illegitimate claims is utterly infuriating.

cwojno 6y ago
Agreed. This is 100% unfair to the innocent.
roenxi 6y ago
What part of the process don't you like? It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. It sucks for those who end up on a list due to mistakes - but there isn't going to be a scenario where that doesn't happen however the system is set up. Unless paying back debt is done on an honour system I suppose. Corporations dedicated to, essentially, harassment is much better than the first obvious alternative, which is having officials involved. If the police think you've done the wrong thing they generally won't be dissuaded by a certified letter.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  The alternative is what's done already: debt score penalty. And demanding payment for debts without harassment. It's not hard.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > And demanding payment for debts without harassment. That'll look pretty much the same as what they are doing now. People who take money on the basis that they will do a thing in the future should then do the thing. If they can decide not to do the thing and walk away with the money then the situation gets a bit silly. Persistently asking for the money back is about as mild a recourse as possible. The hoop-jumping to make them stop is horrible for people who get caught up by mistake, but is not that terrible. The alternative is magistrates and lawsuits. That would be much worse. Getting into to a fight with the tax office when they mistakenly think you owe them money would be much worse.
    - arp242 6y ago
      The problem isn't that they're asking for payments, it's that they're demanding payments when they don't actually have any evidence that any are due, which is why they simply disappear when asked for any evidence, for a while anyway. The problem is 1) when people act in good faith and assume the debt is actually real and just pay, 2) people who might be afraid that things escalate and pay to "avoid trouble", and 3) the fear that it might negatively affect your credit score. The power imbalance is very real. When a debt collecting agency sends you a bill, this is essentially it's an accusation that you didn't fulfil your responsibilities and duties. I don't know about you, but I tend to make pretty darn sure that I'm right when I accuse of someone, especially if it's a very specific accusation. While mistakes can surely be made with the best of efforts, it's the debt collector's responsibility to correct any, rather than just shrug and ignore any rebuttals. Of course, that's not in their financial interests (quite a few debt collecting agencies "buy" outstanding bills and try to make a profit from collecting them). It's not my responsibility to prove I don't need to pay something; the burden of proof is completely reversed; eBay has been harassing me for years for an £18 alleged "debt" where I have already explained in great detail and with great patience why it's erroneous, but they don't listen: they simply don't reply and then send a new message as if I'm talking to a wall. I had to block a whole bunch of email addresses and phone numbers, instead. > The alternative is magistrates and lawsuits. "Oops, sorry, looks like I don't actually have a bill from AT&T which says you owe anything!"