Being Sued for Unpaid Credit Card Balance...Now What?!?

[PennyQuilts]

Actually, I was only addressing personal responsibiility and ethics. Don't put words in my pen, please.

[Martin]

so it's not a mark of poor character for somebody to request validation from a debt collector, even if they know they owe a debt.

-M

[PennyQuilts]

If it is done to delay or as a strategy when they know they owe the debt, I think it is morally bankrupt bull****. If it is done to actually confirm a disputed debt, no problem.

[Martin]

ok... and if a person knows they owe, but wants the amount proven? -M

[flintysooner]

I've always thought it would be interesting if we had a sabbatical year and a jubilee year as per Deuteronomy. In the sabbatical year all debts were forgiven. In the jubilee year all property reverted to original family possession. As far as I know the latter never was practiced.

Both of these mechanisms had societal benefit.

[PennyQuilts]

ok... and if a person knows they owe, but wants the amount proven? -M

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

If you are looking for absolution for this, you won't find it from me. And trying to put me on the defensive because I have moral scruples about this strikes me as odd - what societal benefit is there to having people game playing instead of promptly holding up their end of the bargain? And at the end of the day you have to consider - Would you rather lend to someone who thinks it is the ethical thing to do to pay back their debt with the least amount of game playing, or someone who takes the money and makes you work to get it back? How is that good for business?

Interesting, to me, that there is even a discussion about this, much less an argument. If you think this is proper, I think that simply is your way of doing business. I'm not trying to change you. Clearly, you think it is more important to play "smart" than to play "right." A lot of people share your ethics.

The fact that I think it is fairly reprehensible shouldn't matter to you, at all. It would be a little late in the day to start worrying about morality once you decide to take the path you are advocating. Clearly you don't share my values and that is your right. Again, I'm not trying to change your behavior (because I know I can't), But I wouldn't lend to you so it is not my problem. I think it undermines business principals, in general, and that drives up costs but there isn't much I can do about that.

Still, I am astonished that ANYONE would try to talk me out of my scruples. The only possible reason I can think of would be to try to convince yourself that what you are advocating is just fine. It doesn't matter what I think or what I believe. If you think what you are advocating is proper, that is your choice. When people have different values, you just have to do some self examination and trust that your own are proper. The world is full of all kinds of folks and that will never change.

[Martin]

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

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

-M

[TaoMaas]

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.

[USG '60]

This has been implied but not said directly. Is it not possible to pay a collector and then the original creditor say We did not authorize that collector to collect for us, they scammed you because you still owe US? I thought that was why you asked for proof. It seems prudent to make sure that the collector is actually collecting for the creditor.

[TaoMaas]

I'd been kinda watching this from the sidelines because I was curious to see if the OP could actually get the credit card company to say exactly how much he owed. A couple of years ago, I tried to pay off a credit card and it was impossible to get them to give me a final amount. All they kept saying was, "If you'll authorize us to access your bank account, we can take the payment out immediately. Otherwise, we can't tell you exactly how much you owe." I've talked to other people who have had problems with their credit card company holding their check at the front desk for 3-4 days until it was late and then adding a penalty fee for the payment being late. So this person started sending their check in a week earlier, but the credit card company began counting it as an additional payment on the previous month, then would turn around and bill this person for another payment for the upcoming month. Of course, he had to pay it or else his interest rate would have gone up to around 30%. It's all a scam to get direct access to your bank account, IMHO.

[PennyQuilts]

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?

[PennyQuilts]

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]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[Martin]

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

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[Martin]

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

[PennyQuilts]

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?

[Karried]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[Karried]

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?

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[Karried]

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?

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[fourthworldtraffic]

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