Someone told me about request of a Validation Packet, instead of a Validation Letter. What she said was that this would give me the information of the origination of the loan and all information on the account. The Validation Letter is the letter given to show what the debt is, who is collecting it, and telling you of your rights to dispute the debt? They won't mail me out one of those because they say they mailed it a year ago. I have explained to these people very clearly that I just want proof and then I will pay, I want to see the debt origination and history, if its my debt I will pay it. So anyone know anything about the Packet vs the Letter? She also mentioned an Affirmation Letter to me. Anyone know of this? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated, my husband and I want to pursue this a bit further, and I don't know this stuff. TYIA! Also: I want to get some letters out tomorrow and want to make sure I ask for the right things.
Whoever you're talking to doesn't know what they're talking about. All you can do is ask for validaton and at this point, the debt collector doesn't have to provide it insofar as it's outside of the 30 day window. That said, even if they did have to comply under a state law, what they must provide certainly doesn't rise to the level of what this "packet" mandates.
Well she evidently did know what she was talking about, and they do need to provide a full packet if asked for in a written letter. I have talked to a lawyer about this. The credit agency must go back and show documentation of the full debt, full payment history, all hands it has changed ect. Some credit agencies send this out automatically, those that don't want to deal with it, the junk agencies basically will not do it unless you ask and even then it is a hassle. Looking into this more though, there is no way for them to pull a full packet because Providian is gone, and there are no longer records of their accounts. As far back as they can get me is starting when the first credit agency purchased this account. It is different than a validation letter in that it does not give you 30 days to dispute the debt, it simply gives you all information available on the debt. It also has nothing to do with the 30 day window to file dispute. Needless to say, our packet is in the mail.
Providian - verifiable? Sorry for bumping an old post, but "Providian" caught my eye. Since WaMu purchased Providian, I would've thought that they would've archived the old records. If they didn't -- if those records are otherwise gone -- then this is great news for me. I just sent my DV on a disputed Providian debt that was last paid in December 2004. I'm nine months away from the SOL expiring. Can anyone else confirm whether or not Providian debts are able to be verified?
Creditor has to provide you with proof of the debt upon request. In the event that you are seeking proof of a debt that is no longer held by the original creditor, then I'd suggest you request proof of ownership as well, via a complete chain of assignments/allonges. Some states are passing new laws this yr. which require creditors to provide customer requests in a timely manner (i.e. within 30 days of their receipt of a customer request). I'd recommend a Certified information request letter as opposed to regular mail or fax.
Where does it say that a creditor must provide you with proof upon request? You can certainly ask for proof of the debt and you can certainly ask for a complete chain of assignments, but don't hold your breath unless you're asking by way of a request for discovery (and even then...)
"Where does it say that a creditor must provide you with proof upon request? " It wont say in any loan documents. For one, that could increase potential liability for the creditor. I can't quote the case here at this time (from memory), but there's a case pending in the North Carolina State (I think its state court, but definitely in NC) court where a law is being passed that WILL require the creditor to provide any information upon consumer request, in a timely manner. Timely manner will equate to (I'm guessing) 30 to 45 days upon creditors receipt of the consumers information request. I'm told (by attorney's) that it will be passed some time in April of 2008. You can bet your arse's that other states will eventually follow. Besides, with the frequency of loan sales on the secondary market, it only makes sense that laws like this will eventually be passed to protect the consumer. I'm not paying anything unless you first verify I owe you and secondly, verify you actually own it. In the event that suit is filed and discovery is opened, you will atleast have documentation requesting proof of the debt before the suit is even filed. Believe me, that can go along way with the courts when the consumer is actually trying to validate a debt before they pay it and can prove their requests were ignored.
In addition, in some states (Oregon, for one,) if you answer a debt-related summons and are ready to go to trial, there is a required mediation session prior to any trial. Now, prior to that mediation session, you can bet you have the right to ask for any and all records to be brought before the court mediator. I think most folks just roll over under a civil debt suit and fail to realize there are many, many alternatives prior to any judgment being granted from a court. It sounds as if some states are moving in a direction to offer a balance between debtor and creditor/collector. Things could get very interesting the next few years.
At the same time, many credit agreements now include a binding arbitration clause that precludes going to court. Interesting, indeed.
A "debt collector" must provide "validation" of the debt. Authority states that can be virtually anything so long as it's forwarded from the original creditor. This is providing a request for validation is timely. If it isn't, they don't have to provide anything and still collect. Actually, they don't have to provide anything unless they wish to collect even if the request is timely. That is the FDCPA. Some state laws like the Texas Finance Code differ. Original creditors don't have to provide anything. The FACTA amendments prescribe that they must but, they're is no private cause of action if they don't. Therefore, it is a law without teeth and they often ignore it.
You actually do go to court, but it's not an actual full blown trial. Kind of like a mini trial. Gives both sides a good idea of how the case will turn out if goes to trial. I've been seeing alot of these lately in Business LOC's where the consumer actually has the right to demand it, as opposed to it being "at the lenders option" only.
I think you're confusing court-ordered mediation with binding arbitration. In court-ordered mediation, you and the creditor try to work something out before going to trial. This works when there's no real dispute, just ironing out the details and it saves court time. Binding arbitration is used in place of going to court and results in a 98% chance of being decided in favor of the creditor.
Maybe I am, is it different with debt collection than insurance suits? I went to one a few months back in NC (was an insurance case I was the Plaintiff) the judge and I didn't see eye to eye, but I got a clear picture of how my case would most likely end up if I appealed her decision and took to trial. Although I had a good case, I agreed to settle for less post Arbitration and avoid going to trial. Time, trouble, amount of money and how the Judge was leaning all factored into my decision. The judge granted me only partial judgment amount I was seeking and I took it. Maybe it's different when collecting debt, I don't recall the last Arbitration I was at. Been to numerous Mediations though. But I did find it interesting in the BLOC doc's I've recently been reviewing that the right to Arbitrate clause is more frequently being implemented into the agreements that allow the consumer the right to Arbitrate. Guess I could Google "the difference between Arbitration and Trial". Do you know the difference specifically?
If it's binding arbitration, you both present your case to the arbitor, who then makes a decision binding on both parties. The problem with this is that if the arbitor doesn't find in favor of the creditor, he or she will not get many more cases to artitrate. That's why there is now a lot of controversy over the binding arbitration clause in many of the credit card agreements. You agree to binding arbitration or you don't get the credit card.
In the credit agreement, you usually waive your right to trial and agree to abide by the decision of the arbitration judge. Unfortunately, as Hedwig suggests, the arbiter is paid by the case and not by your taxes so there is some inherent conflict of interest in such an arrangement. I posted a link a while back to someone who looked into it and it was a pretty chilling account.
And of course there is court arbitration and NAF which is another whole thing to deal with and when the plaintiff gets the award they try to affirm to judgement in real court. : (
