How to Fight this "Validation"

Well, they don't have to reply within 30 days, no matter what you say. The law says that if you request validation within 30 days of the initial contact, they must cease collection activity until they send you the documentation. It could be three years later, as long as they haven't been attempting to collect in the meantime.

And they need to provide you proof of the original creditor and the amount due. It sounds like they've sent that.

 

According to the FDCPA, what you got was all they are legally obligated to send you in order to comply with the FDCPA.

As to a "vigorous response," what do you want to accomplish? Unless they've been calling you and updating your credit report with a collection trade line. I don't see much of a violation in what you describe. There could be some fine print somewhere to pick on if you're really looking for a fight, but aside from that, it doesn't look like you have much to work with.

 

You may want to read the article on this website. It was very helpful to me on the issue of validation.

Debt Validation: The ultimate weapon against the collection agencies

 

Lou:

Unfortunately, that is proper validation per the FDCPA.

 

Unfortunately the information on that page is:
a) out of date
b) misleading
c) out-and-out wrong.

I think I used that the first time I had a problem (and before I found this site) but after a year or two of reading case law and various FTC interpretations, I know better.

The FDCPA clearly states (in 15 USC 1692g(b) that is cited later on that same page) that to validate a debt the debt collector has to obtain verification from the original creditor or the name and address of the original creditor and send it to you. Verification is usually nothing more than the last statement that shows a balance due, but all they need to send you is the name and the address of the O.C. The FDCPA does not say anything about signed contracts, payment histories or any of that. All that comes into play (if it ever does) in court. Even then, the OC/JDB can usually get away with much less (unless you hold their feet to the fire and have a friendly judge).

Use at your own risk.

 

I've seen similar advice on another board and websites................the way it was explained to me is the whole point of asking for all that stuff was to see how much proof they had in the event they had to go to court........a book I reccomend reading that was very helpful (which may be at your library) is "Debt Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About" by Kevin Trudeau

 

I guess it all depends on your strategy.

The flaw in this one is that they only have to send you the minimum required by the FDCPA to resume collection activities, whether you asked for everything or not. A validation letter is not the same as the discovery phase of a civil trial, so why would they send you anything more than they have to, even if they had it?

Where this approach becomes foolish is if you ask for a laundry list of stuff and they don't send it to you. You think they are violating the FDCPA like the OP of this thread did so you take them to court. They counter sue for the debt, present the evidence they DO have (but didn't send you) and Boom! You lose your FDCPA suit AND you now have a judgment against you.

Like I said. Use that advice at your own risk (peril).

In all the FDCPA cases I've read that have gone to federal court, the less you say in your letters and on the phone, the better. Your strategy is to get them to slip up NOT you. The more you say (or put in a letter) the more chances you have of slipping up.

 

Your next step depends on what you want to accomplish.
Your goal has to be a bit more specific than "make it go away."

Just from reading this:

Someone says you owe someone money. Either you do or you don't (or you don't know, in which case, you don't unless they can prove it).

If you do. Then either you want to pay them or you don't. If you do, then there's a right way and a not-so-right way to do that. If you don't then that's simpler, but has more consequences.

From there it gets [more] complicated.

It could be this is out of the statute of limitations.
It could be that the amount is big and a suit is likely (and they've been using this time to collect all the evidence they need to proceed) or it's small and you just fell off the radar for a while.

You've left out a lot of information that would help anyone provide more detailed advice. That's fine (and completely your prerogative) but you'll only get generic suggestions as a result.

Good luck.

 

As ccbob said, we need more information. It is very possible you are outside of the statute of limitations on suing you for the money, so you may have a very solid affirmative defense. Don't fret; give us some more information. What state are you in? Just for fun, who is the JDB?

Also, this thread reminds one why the vast amount of flat-out wrong information out there needs to be wiped off the Internet. I cringed when I clicked that link.

 

Well there IS a concrete answer in what constitutes validation in the eyes of the law and it has been that way for over 10 years. Read the FTC letters and the transcripts of some of the cases that have actually gone to trial.

The problem with a lot of Internet research is that there is no shortage of places that "reconstitute" the information to suit a particular agenda (e.g. get more page views) so much of it is really only useful to find the source documents and then draw your own conclusions. If you go from the reconstituted information (e.g. from this or any other "information" site) you do so at your own risk. People looking for no-fee, one-stop answers tend to get what they pay for.

In the case of validation, the big confuser is what constitutes "validation" to the FDCPA and what constitutes a "preponderance of evidence." To satisfy the FDCPA, validation can be little more than the name and address of the original creditor. A copy of the last statement is the more common response and satisfies the requirements as well. There are some things that definitely do not constitute validation, such as a printout from the JDB/CA. This is all described in the language of the FDCPA and the FTC letters on the topic.

The important point to remember is the CA/JDB has NO obligation to provide you with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or even present a "preponderance of evidence" that you owe the debt until you are in the middle of a law suit (and even then, they can get away with much less).

You do have an obligation to repay debts that you incur, but you are also under no obligation to send any money to anyone who asks for it, either. As far as "what letter to send next," it just depends. If you want to pay the bill, start negotiating. If you want to deny this is your account, start denying.