Simplicity ought to be the guiding principle and Alternative # 2 is closest to that principle, (but expressions like "charge-off" should be avoided. That's a technical term specific to accountants. Some average consumers just aren't going to know what it means).
Beginning with the amount owed on the date of default, then adding interest (including rate) is simple enough, (still, the calculation of that interest could be included). Any and all fees ought to be listed, explained and JUSTIFIED. The same should hold true for any other charges, followed by payments and/or credits added after the date of default. This presentation would provide a clear picture.
Moderator:
This so-called "validation notice" might better be called a 'justification notice.' After all, the notification should supply the justification underlying the demand for payment; ("Why am I being asked to pay this money?").
This justification, obviously, should clearly specify the original transaction; i.e., specific product or service purchased, prior efforts to collect, (the history of the collection efforts) and present status. It's not so much 'additional information' which is required, it's more the clarity of the information provided.
That said, I'm convinced that communications between creditor and debtor should avoid words like 'creditor' and 'debtor,' along with words like, 'charge-off', 'default' (already mentioned by myself and emmacollector in this thread) and any and all words that belong in an accounting 101 book. I understand what these words signify and sometimes I get confused by who's the creditor and who's the debtor. Again, simplicity, which entails clarity, ought to be the guiding principle.
Dasein
1Simplicity ought to be the guiding principle and Alternative # 2 is closest to that principle, (but expressions like "charge-off" should be avoided. That's a technical term specific to accountants. Some average consumers just aren't going to know what it means). Beginning with the amount owed on the date of default, then adding interest (including rate) is simple enough, (still, the calculation of that interest could be included). Any and all fees ought to be listed, explained and JUSTIFIED. The same should hold true for any other charges, followed by payments and/or credits added after the date of default. This presentation would provide a clear picture.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Dasein
2
Moderator: This so-called "validation notice" might better be called a 'justification notice.' After all, the notification should supply the justification underlying the demand for payment; ("Why am I being asked to pay this money?"). This justification, obviously, should clearly specify the original transaction; i.e., specific product or service purchased, prior efforts to collect, (the history of the collection efforts) and present status. It's not so much 'additional information' which is required, it's more the clarity of the information provided. That said, I'm convinced that communications between creditor and debtor should avoid words like 'creditor' and 'debtor,' along with words like, 'charge-off', 'default' (already mentioned by myself and emmacollector in this thread) and any and all words that belong in an accounting 101 book. I understand what these words signify and sometimes I get confused by who's the creditor and who's the debtor. Again, simplicity, which entails clarity, ought to be the guiding principle.
View this comment in the discussion thread