so... do you deny that collections agencies pad the amounts they are trying to collect?

-M

Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? Did I say that? You clearly have your agenda. Got it.

I didn't say a single thing about collection agencies.

Moreover, I specifically said that if the amount was disputed, I had no problem with asking that it be verified. You aren't reading closely because you have a bug up your butt about collection agencies. What I said was that if the amount is NOT disputed, pay up and quit dragging your heels. If the amounts are padded or you think they are padded ... duh... THINK for heaven's sake. Doesn't that amount to a disputed amount?

Sorry, ECO, but taking the credit card company's side in this robs you of any morals whatsoever in many people's book. They are not now, nor ever have been, about doing the "right" thing. They work the system to their full advantage and that appears to be okay with you. The consumers are just supposed to roll over for that type of behavior apparently. I find it extremely egotistical for someone to think that's a morally superior position.

Taomaas - I ask that you take that back. It is an insult (that I am robbed of morals). I didn't take the "credit card companies'" side. I was talking about debt and paying what you know you owe. Sorry you don't like the CC companies. That is your beef. What I was talking about was honor and personal ethics. To accuse me of being robbed of my ethics by calling for personal accountability is outrageous. To demonize the credit card companies to the point that you attack the ethics of someone who is simply saying to pay what they know they owe is twisted.

Taomaas - I ask that you take that back. It is an insult (that I am robbed of morals). I didn't take the "credit card companies'" side. Sorry...when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And, yes, you are taking the credit card companies side by stating that if someone asks for a concrete amount of what they owe, then they're somehow morally inferior. The message is "Don't question the credit card company". How can that not be seen as taking their side? It's not only the customer's right to know how much they owe, it would be personally irresponsible NOT to establish that amount before setting out to repay the debt.

Sorry...when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And, yes, you are taking the credit card companies side by stating that if someone asks for a concrete amount of what they owe, then they're somehow morally inferior. The message is "Don't question the credit card company". How can that not be seen as taking their side? It's not only the customer's right to know how much they owe, it would be personally irresponsible NOT to establish that amount before setting out to repay the debt.

That's crap - you are reading into what I said. I never said to not question. Where did I say that? The basic premise has been that if you know what you owe, pay it. To ask to verify the amount just to delay is what I objected to. But only a fool would pay what they aren't sure they owe and I never advocated that. Read closely.

why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?
note the post that you quoted... see the '?' at the end... that means it's a question. how is asking a question putting words in your mouth? i'm just giving you the opportunity to clarify your position.


i specifically said that if the amount was disputed, i had no problem with asking that it be verified.
if i missed that, i'm sorry... but to my question,

and if a person knows they owe, but wants the amount proven?

you replied:

they are working the system to gain an advantage. why else would they?

in your own words, you stated that anyone questioning the amount is trying to 'work' the system. i deny that.

i agree that the 'right' thing to do is to pay what is owed. i agree that lack of personal responsibility is a problem that plagues our society. however, what i think you fail to understand (or at least fail at communicating) is that collection agencies don't always act as honest entities when claiming uncollected debt. it's 'right' that a person pays what they owe. it is not 'right' for a person to pay more than that.

-M

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the "right" thing to do is to pay more than you owe. I certainly never suggested that. That makes no sense.

well... until you clarified your position, you were basically saying that making the collection agency prove the amount was nothing more than a stalling tactic and therefore unethical. but the truth is people who don't make the agencies prove that amount typically do end up paying more than what they really owe... and it isn't right.

-M

well... until you clarified your position, you were basically saying that making the collection agency prove the amount was nothing more than a stalling tactic and therefore unethical. but the truth is people who don't make the agencies prove that amount typically do end up paying more than what they really owe... and it isn't right.

-M

Throughout, my basic premise has been that you knew what you owed (with the implication that this agreed with the billing). If you aren't sure and want to make sure your numbers are correct, that is a completely different scenario. It may have been what you were thinking but it was not what I wrote. You are asking me to clarify something that was plain as day unless you folded in a different premise. Not once did I say paying whatever they billed was the right thing to do. That would be stupid.

If the amount is not in dispute, asking for "proof" IS a stalling or other tactic. If you "know" what you owe (and it agrees with the billing), what would be the point?

The debt is around $7000 and I am being sued for that, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

Seems like the exact amount has always been in question.

Seems like the exact amount has always been in question.

That doesn't mean the debt is disputed or unknown. "Costs" aren't the amount of the debt. Once you get into litigation, all kinds of things get tacked on that is part of the price of not paying on time - which is another reasons it is best to work it out ahead of time.

I don't even understand the issue here.. if he doesn't have the money to pay right this instant (which he doesn't) then why not try to postpone it in an effort to get the money? Instead of just filing bankruptcy?

I don't even understand the issue here.. if he doesn't have the money to pay right this instant (which he doesn't) then why not try to postpone it in an effort to get the money? Instead of just filing bankruptcy?

Well, that is a separate question and he has fewer options since it is now in court. If it were me, I'd seek a settlement if I couldn't pay the whole amount, right away, but now that it is in the court, they may insist on going for a judgement and start garnishing him and putting liens against things. Personally, I wouldn't file for bankruptcy over $7,000 and some costs and fees. It is a setback but he can dig his way out if he applies himself.

One of our clients just filed bankruptcy....got the notice today.

Are we able to write off the loss on money owed to us or are we just out of luck? Does anyone know?

One of our clients just filed bankruptcy....got the notice today.

Are we able to write off the loss on money owed to us or are we just out of luck? Does anyone know?

Scheesh. Sorry to hear that. Maybe a bankruptcy lawyer or tax specialist knows something.

Jesus christ and the dilapidated Alamo, stay focused...Good mediation and moderation though guys.

...and $7000 is still has a useful amount of value... to say the least.

One of our clients just filed bankruptcy....got the notice today.

Are we able to write off the loss on money owed to us or are we just out of luck? Does anyone know?

Depends on what kind of creditor you are, but you need to act fast. During the bankruptcy proceedings, you should be notified.

2 things:
Determine what is a want or a need.
Personal accountability.

Throughout, my basic premise has been that you knew what you owed (with the implication that this agreed with the billing). If you aren't sure and want to make sure your numbers are correct, that is a completely different scenario. It may have been what you were thinking but it was not what I wrote. You are asking me to clarify something that was plain as day unless you folded in a different premise. Not once did I say paying whatever they billed was the right thing to do. That would be stupid.

If the amount is not in dispute, asking for "proof" IS a stalling or other tactic. If you "know" what you owe (and it agrees with the billing), what would be the point?

The point is that it's not just about the amount but whether the money is REALLY owed to this particular creditor. Asking for "proof" is very important. So you don't end up paying the money you owe to the wrong creditor and then have the right one come after for it later. You'll end up paying twice. That's what I keep saying.

In your mind it's a stalling tactic, but you're protecting yourself from potential fraudsters by requiring proof.


One of our clients just filed bankruptcy....got the notice today.

Are we able to write off the loss on money owed to us or are we just out of luck? Does anyone know?

You can put in with the court for payment on their account and get in line with all their other creditors. Hope for the best, in other words. Maybe you'll see some money. Not all bankruptcies are built equally. Keep in mind some bankruptcies are merely a restructuring of debt, not debt elimination. And there's always the tax write-off. You should check with your accountant or lawyer to see what your best course of action is.

<<The point is that it's not just about the amount but whether the money is REALLY owed to this particular creditor. Asking for "proof" is very important. So you don't end up paying the money you owe to the wrong creditor and then have the right one come after for it later. You'll end up paying twice. That's what I keep saying.>>

I can see in a relatively complicated debt (not something like a single bill to buy a computer or something) this could be very helpful. I have absolutely no problem with that sort of thing if it is genuinely prompted by desire to do the right thing with the minimum of footdragging.

Sorta on the same topic - I see where tonight on DateLine they are doing a piece called "Inside the Financial Fiasco: Debt Trap" and the description says they will be uncovering "the dirty tactics employed by some collection agencies."

KFOR Ch4 at 9pm.

<<The point is that it's not just about the amount but whether the money is REALLY owed to this particular creditor. Asking for "proof" is very important. So you don't end up paying the money you owe to the wrong creditor and then have the right one come after for it later. You'll end up paying twice. That's what I keep saying.>>

I can see in a relatively complicated debt (not something like a single bill to buy a computer or something) this could be very helpful. I have absolutely no problem with that sort of thing if it is genuinely prompted by desire to do the right thing with the minimum of footdragging.

When you get scammed at some point in the future, and with this attitude it's only a matter of time before you do, you'll change your mind about demanding proof. Anyway, I'm reminded of the definition of insanity. I'm out of this debate. I think our OP gets the message.

I pay off my credit card every month. Except for the mortgage, we pretty much pay as we go. Makes things simpler.

I pay off my credit card every month. Except for the mortgage, we pretty much pay as we go. Makes things simpler.

That's really the only smart way to go and how we live too. We live below our means and choose not to incur debt. We have two credit cards but only use them for online purchases and things that require a card, like car rentals. We pay cash for our cars, vacations, and gifts. If we don't have the cash then we simply don't buy it.

Most often we perform home repairs and minor vehicle maintenance ourselves and find a great satisfaction in doing so.

I was inspired by Dave Ramsey years ago and think his common sense approach is undeniable.

I really feel our teenager is going to dig himself a debt hole that will haunt him for years. He asks all the time why we don't buy things like jet ski's and 3-wheelers, "I saw an ad and they are only $199/month, C'mon." He really doesn't get it and when he goes to college they will be offering him "free money" and I'm sure he will take it.

But I guess you've got to experience the hell debt is to really fear returning there.

FDCPA = Getting debtors off of your back.

If debt collectors are really harrassing you, look up the Fair Debt Credit Protection Act.. and remind a vicious debt collector that you are familiar with this law.

remind a vicious debt collector that you are familiar with this law.

Better yet, tell them you'd like to put them on speaker phone because Chris Hansen with DateLine would like to make sure he's getting all this on tape!

Or pretend to be a police officer investigating a murder on the scene and that the caller is a potential witness. Ask questions, sound very serious. If it works, the harasser could be convinced that the person owing debt was murdered.

lol, I remember a tape like that... a prank call...it was hilarious.

My mom had a roommate and she incurred some serious medical bills. She fell behind and moved out.

The creditors kept calling my mom's house night and day.. they told her she was lying about her roommate moving out.. they swore at her, called her names, belittled, abused .. she just stopped taking their calls. I answered one day and told them to stop harrassing my mother and got their supervisor on the phone. He was even a bigger jerk than the caller.

At this time, we didn't have much recourse and didn't know what to do about it, but now I'd file a complaint so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

Hey UpTheCreek, give us an update when all of this is settled. I'd be interested to know how things pan out.

Or pretend to be a police officer investigating a murder on the scene and that the caller is a potential witness. Ask questions, sound very serious. If it works, the harasser could be convinced that the person owing debt was murdered.

That would be monumentally stupid and it could possibly get you prison time.

Thunder you should at least give credit if you are going to use someone elses idea.

Tom Mabe on the Bob and Tom Show

YouTube - The Greatest Prank Call Ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5z4Vs26-TI)

Thunder you should at least give credit if you are going to use someone elses idea.

Tom Mabe on the Bob and Tom Show

YouTube - The Greatest Prank Call Ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5z4Vs26-TI)

Already done?! :LolLolLol Well, now I know its common these days!

Hey UpTheCreek, give us an update when all of this is settled. I'd be interested to know how things pan out.

It is far from settled, at this point, but I'll give and update.


Thanks for all of the advice. It was very helpful.

I decided Bankruptcy was not an option at this time.

I spoke to the attoney's office and they offered to settle for a lump sum of around $5000. I have sold what I could, but only came up with about half. They said they would take that if I would pay the rest at the end of the next month (april). It would take my entire paycheck for the month to do that, so I declined. I was then told that my wages WILL be garnished if i did not pay.

I'm a fighter, not a lover. So I filled an answer with the court admitting I owed money, but disputing the amount and asserting that the firm sueing violated the FDCPA.

That was last Friday...now we'll see what happens. I am pretty sure I have a snowball's chance in Hell, but it's better than just rolling over.

Oh well...here comes a judgement...

I give you credit for trying to resolve this issue.

Sometimes the only option is to try to find ways to work it out until you have the ability to pay. If you don't have it and can't live on your income ( if they garnish your wages)... then it seems like they backed you into a corner and you had no other choice.

Hopefully, this will give you some time to save up to repay them and this will all be over for you! I'm sure it's very stressful.

Well, they were stupid to force the rest of the balance to be paid in full by the end of the month. You already have the half to put toward the balance. The rest, they should've just accept payment installments.

They didn't want to work it with you, so they threatened to go down the garnish route. Well, if they want to garnish, it's going to take them a lot longer to get all that money. I know, they are stupid people and threats get them nowhere, at least not that fast.

Some smells fishy with this collection agency. It sounds like they are taking a loan shark approach on your debt. You need to consult an attorney on this issue. You may want to try Legal Aid. If nothing else they can at least give you a few tips on how to deal with this situation.

Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma, Inc. (http://www.legalaidok.org/)

Once it goes to court, they'd rather get the whole amount. Discounting the total is just a way to avoid court. If they can't get that, they'll get a judgement because it is easier to garnish than to continure to try to get a debtor to voluntarily pay a debt that they weren't paying to begin with. Moreover, you have it on the books and don't have to worry about the account going stale.

It may well take them longer to get their money but how is the creditor going to know? All they really know is that they aren't getting paid, voluntarily.

For a short period of time, I collected debt - hated it - super boring and either you felt terrible for the debtor or you wanted to slap them, depending on the circumstances. But it just didn't pay once things reached this point to continue to allow them to voluntarily pay. From the creditor's perspective, get a judgment, do your garnishments routinely and move on. Once they have a judgment, they can garnish bank accounts, jobs and taxes. That costs money but they are more likely to get paid than to simply continue to hope the debtor pays voluntarily. Generally, they can get more that way and with less headache than voluntarily. That is what you pay the lawyers for.

Getting $5000 instead of $7000 was a fabulous deal. Too bad you coudn't come up with the money. From the creditor's standpoint, they aren't going to want to simply end up with another debt. They'd rather have a judgment for the full amount than to have to pay their lawyers to have to refile for the left over amount if the debtor doesn't pay. It costs as much to pay a lawyer to go for $2000 as $10,000. Moreover, and this is important - you can frequently hit them with the attorney fees which is really what they want to avoid. Tacking on several hundred to pay Mr. Esquire because he had to go to court puts you even deeper into the hole.