The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/i-dont-think-that-the-op-said-that-the-original-30768737.aspx

Subject:  Re: A 2006 Invoice Date:  7/9/2013  10:48 PM
Author:  bacon Number:  118834 of 121182

I don't think that the OP said that the original correspondence was received at a physical addresss, not a mailing address....

But OP said,

Incidentally, the address they use for us was the street address where we used to live and not the mail address....

Sounds like two separate addresses to me. And a potential phishing attempt. Since the dun was sent to an address maybe off the Internet, and not to OP's actual erstwhile mailing address, it sounds more like a phish.

The dunner can write a second time if it's both legitimate and in a hurry (why, after all these years, the sudden rush?). Meantime, if the store can produce an actual unpaid invoice, there's plenty of time to a) deal directly with the store and b) so advise the dunner--perhaps the latter through a lawyer.

I see no information [in your sample letter] other than the name and address (which the dunner already has)....

What the dunner already has is an old street address that is not his mailing address--but now known to be an effective means of contact. Next, look on the envelope in which OP sends this letter (or in the REPLY field of his email to the dunner): there sit current contact data.

The problem with responding to a phish rather than ignoring it? As I said earlier in this thread, it confirms an old address as still live and gives the phisher a current, live address, and it exposes OP to more phishing attempts. You may think this is trivial; there's no need to accept the hassle when it can be avoided.

Eric Hines
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us