Backfired

What law says they have to do that? FDCPA does not say they have to do that.

Again, please put my finger on the law that says they have to provide you with such copies as you are demanding.

Again, please put my finger on the law that says they have to do that

Now those two make more sense.

I'd hate to bet money they will pay any attention to that one but it don't hurt to lay it on them.

 

I'm in a similar position: the original CA got fed up dealing with me and now I get to work with another one.

But one thing puzzles me: They both have in place a procedure where, when asked for validation, they forward that request to their "client" (i.e. the OC) who then sends the information directly to the debtor. The FDCPA says that when requested, the validation request is made by the CA to the OC who then sends the info to the CA for forwarding to the debtor.

The FDCPA-prescribed approach makes more sense because then I, as the consumer/debtor, know that the OC is, in fact, working with the CA to collect a debt as well as the particulars of the debt. By simply forwarding the request to the OC and leaving it up to them to comply, I have no documented connection between the CA and the OC to be sure that the CA isn't just scamming me after dredging up an account from somewhere. Instead, I just have the word of the CA claiming they are collecting on behalf of the OC. With horror stories like AFNI floating around, it's hard to take any such claim at face value.

So, I'm wondering if there was some precedent that makes this policy in compliance with the FDCPA when it seems to me that it is skirting it.

 

There is no hard precedent; however I don't think this practice would be viewed as a "violation" by a court. The main issue here would be the consumer receiving validation. If it is sent directly by the OC, there is no real damage to the consumer.

The other point is that perhaps noone has ever taken a CA to task over this.

 

So it would seem on the surface, but the problem I had with the previous CA was that while I was trying to sort out the account (I didn't know it was still in my name because I thought it had been transferred) I was working with the OC to figure out what was going on and the CA because they were pestering me. So, in that case, I had asked the OC to send a copy of the statement and so had the CA.

Unfortunately, the CA didn't tell me that's what they were doing and the OC didn't mention anything about the CA also asking them to send me a copy so, as far as I knew, the statement I received was the result of my phone call. So far as the CA was concerned (as I found out later from the Attorney General) they felt they had complied with the validation by calling the OC and asking them to send it.

So, in the perfect world, it might seem reasonable for the CA to contact the OC and have them validate the debt by sending a statement or something. In the not-so-perfect world of less-than-honest CAs, less-than honest debtors, etc. asking the OC to send the information without referencing the CA (which has been the case so far) leaves a lot of room for error, deception and confusion.

I still think that the FDCPA-described method seems the clearest:
- debtor requests validation from CA
- CA requests information from OC (if they don't have it already)
- OC sends CA the information (which they should have in the first place, IMO)
- CA sends information from OC along with their payment address, etc. to the debtor.

This provides some tangible connection between the OC and the CA as well as some evidence of the debt.

By deferring the request to the OC and leaving it up to them...

-- the debtor/consumer has only the account number to tie the two accounts together, but there's no information other than the word of the CA that the CA is now handling the account. If I am a signatory of the agreement, it seems reasonable (although I don't know if it's legally required) for me to know if and when the contract has been assigned to another party if for no other reason then to know to whom to send the money. Getting the word from a third party with whom I have no agreement (so far as I know) that I now owe them money is suspect. For example, what's to prevent me or anyone else from finding your account from the dumpster and sending you an official-looking letter saying that account has been transferred to me? Pay me now, thank you very much.

If, on the other hand the OC says "Acct. X has been assigned/transferred to this CA, please contact them in the future..." or, absent that, the CA sends information they could only have received from the OC, then I, as the consumer, have a more definite and written record of the transfer of obligation (and less room to wiggle out of it, if I were so inclined).

Also, in the (thankfully few) CAs I've dealt with for myself and others, it's been about 50/50 (i.e. 3/3) . Half of them have responded to the validation as proscribed by the FDCPA. The other half have either just ignored the request or deferred to the OC.

I haven't seen anything to indicate this deferral is in compliance with the FDCPA (but that doesn't mean much). In fact, the opinions and cases I've read tend to lean more towards the FDCPA approach specifically to eliminated the confusion the deferred approach can cause.

To me, it just looks like the CA is trying to save a little postage and time. I will tell you that, if push comes to shove, I'm not going to mess around with Small Claims court, again. This one is going straight to U.S. District Court.

 

I do The law specifies what shall happen. Shall does not mean "might" nor does if mean "maybe" and it don't mean "if". What ever the law says shall be done shall be done or else. The law says the OC shall return the data to the CA who shall send it to the consumer. The law is clear and unambiguous and so if the CA didn't send it to the consumer then sue him for it and let him pay the consequences. If it wasn't his fault because he didn't get it from the OC that is his problem. Let him collect the damages from the OC.

Put my finger on the section of FDCPA that says that.

There you go.

 

I'll have to pull up the FTC Opinion that clarified that the intent of "validation" was:

1) to ensure the correct person is the one being the subject of collection efforts (no mistaken or incorrect identity)

2) that the debt has not already been paid (full or partially), this implies the "accounting of the debt"

This was related to a previous thread where we discussed the actual documents that must be presented by law.

The other point of "suing a CA", for the fact that the OC sent the validation documents, how could you prove any damages?

 

Dixiecup- Just a suggestion, you might want to erase your personal information from this post- since it is a public forum.

 

Isn't the FDCPA strict liability?

There was damage to my credit report, ability to obtain financing, and damage to my reputation (not to mention the stress and strain of dealing with that). While all that is probably not worth 6-7 figures, it is just as real. But, again, if the FDCPA is strict liability, then any other damages would be on top of that.

In my first case, there was no communications to me from the CA, just the continued collection activity of their collection account on my credit report, but that case is still pending...

In my current case, I at least received a letter telling me what they were up to, however that doesn't change the validation procedure described in the FDCPA.

 

Yes, there is a statuatory damage amount of the $1,000.00 per violation. However, isolating this violation, the damages you speak of are related to "false information, or an error reported", not specifically due to the OC directly mailing validation. I totally agree about the above damages for "incomplete and inaccurate information reported", but (in my opinion only!) I think it would be a very difficult case to sue for damages for the direct mailing violation.

The old saying that you are judged in a court of law 90% on "intent" comes into play. If the CA was fulfilling their requirement of providing validation, and the detail of the OC direct mailing could only help them with a defense of trying to reduce overall mailing time (by eliminating their mailing), my opinion is a judge would not rule against them, as they had "good intent".

But,....it would be interesting to see someone bring this as an action. My thought is you would only use it as an "add on" violation.

 

I agree that, while not in direct compliance with the FDCPA, if that was the only cause of action, you might have a tough case ahead of you.

The counter to such a claim that I could imagine would be that the CA was working on with the OC to collect the debt and as such they are complying by asking the OC to send the validation information in response to the request. So nit-picking on this nuance alone, might put you in the situation where you could win the case (they did not follow the letter of the law) and be granted the $1 in damages that resulted from the error/omission.

 

There is a cardinal rule which you should always follow without exception.

NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING FOUND ON ANY INTERNET WEBSITE.

Cardinal rule #2:
If you doubt what I have just said refer to cardinal rule #1,

You should never believe anything found on the internet without checking it out for yourself. Use what you find on the internet as a guide for further research. Take what they say then check it out by doing some google type searches and see what the law says about the matter.

If you are researching the law never believe anything that is not seen on an actual court or government web site.

And all of the above goes for anyting I say too.

 

Here is the problem that PF and the new CA has...

The false and misleading representation that the transfer or sale of any interest in the debt subjects the consumer to any action prohibited by the FDCPA.

Both CA's are liable for illegal collection activity for resuming collection on an unvalidated debt.

BTW: I LOVE PF

I sent a fax validation letter to the execs, and months later they still were calling trying to collect... Oopsies...

It's a shame for them that I keep the transaction receipts from the third-party fax machines with me 24/7, right beside the matching fax...

As soon as they said their name, "Hello, thanks for calling, I anticipate this is about the $1,000.00 check your company now owes me." (Ok, not that blunt, but pretty close.)

 

The Wollman letter...

The case of the debt collector forwarding the validation request to the OC is covered in http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm. Basically the FTC said, in 1993:

 

ccbob:

That's what Wollman says, but recall on dispute provisions are in a lot of CA's assignment agreements.

And even when they're not, the CA doesn't want to shell out the bucks for the validation, so they toss it back to the OC like a hot-potato.

 

side question: if an alleged debt wends its way from one CA to another, and you timely dispute each one, then one gets it and proceeds without regard to your disputes, can their mere ACQUISITION of the note be considered a "continued collection effort" in light of the fact that NOBODY prior ever validated the debt?

Also, does it matter what the "provenance" of the alleged debt is? ie, whether some CA gets it from the OC or as part of a batch of junk from another CA?