[irjustin]

Agreed, if the customer owed something/missed a payment, then this letter makes sense.

This customer didn't owe anything, so clearly this letter wasn't intended for them, but got it by an error.

I'm all for pitchforking Comcast and other giants who have terrible business practices, but this article seems like it's trying to drum up angst when this can clearly be explained by a mistake.

If I had bad debt and an option to repay my debt or have it cancelled if I do X and X is reasonable, these are both good options.

[mebr]

It would be reasonable to include in the letter how much the debt is and the date of that perhaps. And with good intentions, an alternative way of resolving the issue. This letter is not friendly. I get letters with the same spirit and those bug me a lot.

[quitit]

Some people are bad with their finances and may believe that they had outstanding debt.

Although your suggestion is entirely plausible, shaking the chains is also plausible.

It would at least get me to call the company because the letter is written to suggest that there is outstanding debt.

If this was an error: The proper thing to do is a follow-up letter to apologise for the confusion and confirm that their credit rating is not at risk, until that happens it’s fair to assume the worst of the company.

[encryptluks2]

This type of letter doesn't make sense no matter what, and if people receive something like this they should immediately file a complaint with the FTC for FCRA violations.

[irjustin]

I'll need help understanding why this letter doesn't make sense if I have bad debt (can agree it doesn't with the current article).

and which FCRA violation specifically? Basic read of FCRA... I don't see one.

[not2b]

If the person owes money the letter should describe how much is owed and what it is owed for.

[irjustin]

Please link a source for this one. Look, this is a great practice for sure, but we're in the realm of legal now.

I looked briefly[0] and couldn't find anything that explicitly that's what you need to do when describing options.

The only requirement that I can see they are *required* to do:

> furnishes negative information to such an agency regarding credit extended to a customer, the financial institution shall provide a notice of such furnishing of negative information, in writing, to the customer.

And it needs to be 30 days. As far as I can tell, this is in good standing FCRA wise.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0111-fair-credit-r...

[not2b]

Sorry, no. You may be "in the realm of legal now", but I wasn't.

You fundamentally misunderstand what I was saying. I was not claiming that they were violating a legal requirement, just that they are behaving unethically, and if the rules allow this then new rules are needed.

[irjustin]

Ah sorry i thought you were replying to the FCRA violation part of the post.

[jpmoral]

I agree with the article though that the letter borders on threatening and is misleading.

Nitpick: Angst != anger