A productive talk with the collector

Problem with that! I don't know of anyone who would simply agree to pay some anonymous caller that amount of money! That conversation is so fake it isn't even funny. it SHOULD go like this:

(phone ringing)

Debtor: Hello?

Collector: Is this Mr. Jones?

Debtor: Yes.

Collector: You do realize that you owe us $5,000? How would you like to pay that today to avoid any legal action?
(((Debtor: What company are you with? Who are you collecting for?)))

Debtor: I don't have that amount of money right now.

Collector: How much can you send today?

Debtor: I have maybe $500.

Collector: How much can you send us each month?

Debtor: I think $300.

Collector: Ok. If we have that $500 by 5 PM and you send $300 by the first of every month, we'll hold off on legal action. But be aware, that interest is still accruing on this account.

Debtor: ok

((Debtor: Please send me this info in writing and please give me your address so I can send a debt validation letter as is my legal right to do so. If everything is on the level, we can come to some kind of arrangement.))

This is where the CA starts making threats and screaming they don't have to validate anything.

Thank you Goldenbast. It seems our "pro" was not such a pro after all.

Oh, but if you threaten "legal action" you better be prepared to make good on that threat or you are in violation of the fdcpa.

UERon, that was my thought exactly! What legal action are they going to 'hold off' on?

Ahhh...this could go on and on but we're all thinking the same thing... TROLL!

I'd be $1000 richer for that "legal action" comment.

Law Student, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only a violation to threaten legal action only if they don't intend to follow through? Surely not every threat of legal action is a violation is it?

I'm not LawStudent; however, you are absolutely correct. If a CA threatens "legal action" when they have no intentions of following though with it, then it is a violation of the fdcpa. The problem is, crooked CA's use this threat as a daily part of doing business knowing full well they are violating the FDCPA.

Oh, and let's no forget threats of jail time, threats of internet fraud, impersonating attorneys and/or law enforcement, threats of being downloaded, etc.

You get the point.

I think Pro Collector was attempting to illustrate how a routine collection call should go, if it were a perfect world. The only problem is, he couldn't even get his own "idealized" example correct; he still had to throw in the threat of "legal action" in order to try intimidating a make believe debtor into paying.

Pretty sad.

LoneGunman: Generally, you're right. But the "least sophisticated consumer" part of the fdcpa comes into play. To most people, any mention of "legal action" comes across as they're being sued. Included is the bit "we'll hold off on the legal action", suggesting that the process of litigation has already started (when the collector is using this only as a tactic). I know one attorney who routinely sues collectors for the likes of this.

I find the whole scenerio here very unprofessional. After the debtor acknowledged being Mr. Jones this collector failed to state who he was or his collection agency name. He immediately told Mr. Jones he owes 5000 dollars... Pro collection sounds more like a junk-debt buyer..who's he trying to fool??

Law Student, thanks for the clarification, I understand it now. I didn't even notice the "we'll hold off on the legal action" part and how it makes it sound as if the process has already started.

Well, I stand corrected. Good information to know, though.

I forgot about the Mini Miranda they are supposed to read to you. Another error in Pro Collector's "perfect" scenario.