Collection Agency refuses mail...

[Anonymous]

I have sent half a dozen letters to the collection agency who is trying to collect on a medical debt for $250. Every letter I have sent comes back with a yellow USPS barcode sticker that says "Sender Refused". What would be the best couse of action to take on this? Do I have any ground to stand on with CRA if I challenge this? EQ is the only CRA it shows up on. One last note, it is 3 1/2 years old. I have scoured these pages and cant seem to find any info about a CA denying mail. Thanks for any input on this.

[FireMedic1]

Whats the name of the CA?

[RobertEG]

Did they ever send you a dunning notice?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have sent half a dozen letters to the collection agency who is trying to collect on a medical debt for $250. Every letter I have sent comes back with a yellow USPS barcode sticker that says "Sender Refused". What would be the best couse of action to take on this? Do I have any ground to stand on with CRA if I challenge this? EQ is the only CRA it shows up on. One last note, it is 3 1/2 years old. I have scoured these pages and cant seem to find any info about a CA denying mail. Thanks for any input on this.

---

Save those envelopes unopened. I hope at least one of them was demanding validation of the debt pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). If so, then you have the Collection Agency right where you want them.

First, FDCPA states that if you request Validation of the debt (VOD) within 30 days of the collector's first communication to you then the collector must stop all collection actions until VOD is provided. Second, continued collection action (and this means sending you any demand for payment) would be a violation of FDCPA, entitling you to up to $1,000 in Statutory Damages. You would file suit in your local courts. Expect them to claim to have never recieved the Validation request, at which point you hand the unopened envelope containing the VOD request to the Judge and ask the Judge to open it. The envelope will contain your VOD request and the envelope would be marked by the Post Office as "Refused".

Now comes the fun - you will give them a lesson in the "Willful Blindness Rule" elaborated in United States v Jewell 532 F.2d 697 (1976). Basically, Jewell states the following:

Case Name: United States v. Jewell
Citation: 532 F.2d 697 (1976)

Facts: Jewell was convicted of knowingly transporting marijuana in his car from Mexico. The pot was hidden in a secret compartment behind the rear seat. There was evidence that Jewell deliberately avoided positive knowledge in order to avoid responsibility  (“Willful Blindness”). The trial court judge gave a jury instruction that defendant is guilty if the government shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (even though he was not actually aware) his ignorance was solely because he made a conscious purpose to disregard what was in the vehicle to avoid learning the truth.

Defendant’s argument: The state needs to prove that Jewell knowingly brought and possessed the marijuana into the US. The MPC requires the state to prove that the defendant is “aware of a high probability of its existence.”

State’s argument: Jewell interprets “knowingly” to narrow and is not consistent with the purpose of the Drug Control Act. A narrow interpretation would allow deliberate ignorance as a defense.

Holding: Upheld the judge’s instruction and the defendant’s conviction.

Source: http://www.miblaw.com/lawschool/united-states-v-jewell/

Applying it to your case, when a person sends a letter to a business, in the ordinary course of a business operations the business personnel will accept the letter, open it, read it and act on the contents of the letter. In this case, the CA is committing "Willful Blindness" by refusing to accept its mail because the mail may contain something they don't want to know about.

[vntrsc]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have sent half a dozen letters to the collection agency who is trying to collect on a medical debt for $250. Every letter I have sent comes back with a yellow USPS barcode sticker that says "Sender Refused". What would be the best couse of action to take on this? Do I have any ground to stand on with CRA if I challenge this? EQ is the only CRA it shows up on. One last note, it is 3 1/2 years old. I have scoured these pages and cant seem to find any info about a CA denying mail. Thanks for any input on this.

---

Save those envelopes unopened. I hope at least one of them was demanding validation of the debt pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). If so, then you have the Collection Agency right where you want them.

First, FDCPA states that if you request Validation of the debt (VOD) within 30 days of the collector's first communication to you then the collector must stop all collection actions until VOD is provided. Second, continued collection action (and this means sending you any demand for payment) would be a violation of FDCPA, entitling you to up to $1,000 in Statutory Damages. You would file suit in your local courts. Expect them to claim to have never recieved the Validation request, at which point you hand the unopened envelope containing the VOD request to the Judge and ask the Judge to open it. The envelope will contain your VOD request and the envelope would be marked by the Post Office as "Refused".

Now comes the fun - you will give them a lesson in the "Willful Blindness Rule" elaborated in United States v Jewell 532 F.2d 697 (1976). Basically, Jewell states the following:

Case Name: United States v. Jewell
Citation: 532 F.2d 697 (1976)

Facts: Jewell was convicted of knowingly transporting marijuana in his car from Mexico. The pot was hidden in a secret compartment behind the rear seat. There was evidence that Jewell deliberately avoided positive knowledge in order to avoid responsibility  (“Willful Blindness”). The trial court judge gave a jury instruction that defendant is guilty if the government shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (even though he was not actually aware) his ignorance was solely because he made a conscious purpose to disregard what was in the vehicle to avoid learning the truth.

Defendant’s argument: The state needs to prove that Jewell knowingly brought and possessed the marijuana into the US. The MPC requires the state to prove that the defendant is “aware of a high probability of its existence.”

State’s argument: Jewell interprets “knowingly” to narrow and is not consistent with the purpose of the Drug Control Act. A narrow interpretation would allow deliberate ignorance as a defense.

Holding: Upheld the judge’s instruction and the defendant’s conviction.

Source: http://www.miblaw.com/lawschool/united-states-v-jewell/

Applying it to your case, when a person sends a letter to a business, in the ordinary course of a business operations the business personnel will accept the letter, open it, read it and act on the contents of the letter. In this case, the CA is committing "Willful Blindness" by refusing to accept its mail because the mail may contain something they don't want to know about.

---

The OP should inform us as to whether or not he sent a timely (within 30 days of the initial communication) validation request.   If it was timely, has the CA continued collection efforts?  

[Anonymous]

It might be a good idea for the OP to google the "HIPPA Process".  Not saying others advice is wrong, just giving another option for OP to look at.

[FireMedic1]

Why not call and ask why they wont accept the mail? Kinda simple.

[Anonymous]

Why do that when he has a quick $1,000 payday coming if he lets the CA continue. The damage on their end is already done.

[FireMedic1]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Why do that when he has a quick $1,000 payday coming if he lets the CA continue. The damage on their end is already done.

---

I'm aware of this. 

[FireMedic1]

I would recommend that you speak to the FTC regarding this matter. The FTC is the agency that enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practics Act. Contact them, inform them of your situation and provide them with copies of everything, including how you found out that they refused the letter.

The FTC cannot take one side or the other in the debt dispute, but they can handle the fact that someone is violating the law. They are not allowed to refuse contact with you in this manner because of the fact that they attempt to initiate contact with you. By refusing that letter, they are trying to take away the rights that the law guarantees you, the consumer. They cannot legally take those rights away in any manner, so thats why I believe that they cannot refuse those letters from you.

This might even end up in the future as being sufficient grounds for you to file a lawsuit against them, because they are trying to keep you from having the rights that the law guarantees.