§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Now lets take out all the unnecessary, superfluous language and reduce it to it's bare minimum requirement; If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt and mails it to the consumer. What does this say to YOU? ???
Plain and simple just like I've always subscribed if you write in the first 30 days they will cease communication blah blah. Nothing else can be assumed, inferred, implied, interpreted from this paragraph.
Butch thats quite clear in this instance, but what if the colletion agency sends you PARTIAL proof of the debt not the full requirements under the law and you dispute this proof? can the CA still resume collection activity?
What IS validation has never been clearly defined. Consumers look to Spears v Brennan which gives us a look at what courts think IS NOT validation. There are no "full requirements" under the law.
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written Mostly what Jlynn says. Except rather than cease communication (doesn't really say anything about that specifically), they must cease ALL collection activities until they address whatever the letter to them asked for. It would be interesting to know exactly what is considered collection activities as opposed to communication that is not considered as collection activity. As Jlynn says, nothing else is included. Doesn't address letters received by the CA after 30 days or even if you can even dispute after 30 days and have that posted to your credit report.
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written Am I bad I said communication I did mean collection. That cease thing got me to typing.
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written jlynn - I knew that's what you meant A slip of the fingers (I too do it way to often)
Seems to me that logic dictates that: (1) if the CA sends what the consumer deems to be a partial validation as outlined in Spears and (2) the consumer reaffirms specific requests for information as part of the validation request then the CA should refraim from further collection activity until they can adequately validate the collection. Even if there is no case law (yet) to support this logic, it makes sound business sense because this will keep the CA out of court with alledged § 809(b) violations. My two cents...
To me, it says that a collector must cease all collection activities until verification of the debt has been obtained. As long as we continue to dispute the collector's idea of verification, they cannot resume collection activity. If the verification attempt is disputed by the consumer...well...verification has not been obtained. Unless a collector sues and a judge decides whether or not the debt is verified and awards payment to the collector, we determine what varification is and is not.
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written Sassy my issue is this debt formentioned is way past the SOL for them to take any legal action on, they just need to pound sand!!! but they are still pursing cont coll efforts anyway AFTER my C&D letter problem is I am having trouble finding who to serve and the actual company location other than the PO box LOL look at my post venue & small claims let me know what Ya think thx
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written I do this for myself all the time. That is, try to rewrite things to purge all the legal mumbo jumbo, so I can actually read the damn thing. lol The tricky part is to make sure you capture the essence of what the statute is trying to convey. Be creative. Try it with any of your confusing statutes. If you're unsure post your rewrite here so we can all take a look. .
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written within the 30 days, you notify the CA you dispute the acct, they send partial validation, you write another letter further disputing the acct seeking additional info the Ca states they will look into and pulls a hard iq during this time does case law support this PP or view it as continued collection activity.
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written butch, sassy, lbrown anyone plz need to make sure on this one... can you post a reply thx
Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written Fun, I'm not mistasmyth as you quoted above, but I'll fly with him. The FDCPA says until verification of the debt is mailed -- doesn't say partial or what they think is validation. However, if you sent and cease communication, they can't now respond to you with the balance of whatever you may think is complete validation or they may think. If the SOL for enforcement has come and gone, validation is really moot anyway, I'm thinking you should advise them that the SOL has expired and that you again request they cease communication. As a reinforcement to your original C&D, because you didn't say whether or not you also advised them of the SOL. The pull, I say, is continued collection activity. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: § 809(b) Re-Written Okay, I have a question: What if you didn't know you owed the debt until seeing it on your CR for the first time a year later? Can you still ask for VOD and if so, does all the other stuff apply? Meaning, if the CA doesn't verify/validate the debt, but violates the FDCPA by doing a hard pull on your CR, can they still be held liable?
Meaning, if the CA doesn't verify/validate the debt, but 1*violates the FDCPA by doing a hard pull on your CR, can they still be held liable? GettinHip2 ********************* 1*Of course they are liable for violating the FDCPA. There's no open season on violating it is there? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
lbrown, I disputed the hard pull with the CRA and they deleted it can I still sue the Ca for the non-pp pull? or should I just leave it alone
If the CA peeked at your CR without a bonified reason make them pay. Your statutory damages have been levied by Congess ($1000). The problem is that if the CA was persuing a debt in the normal course of business, then they would have a reason to pull your CR.
Thanks to Pale Rider, some further clarification is provided in the following Staff Opinions; Butch; I came across some FTC opinions that I posted some time ago on CN when we were discussing validation. I see the quotes much differently after your explanation. S. Joshua Berger 2) We interpret the "thirty-day period" as a period within which consumers must dispute their debts in writing in order to avail themselves of their Section 809(b) rights, but not as a "grace" period. Fardell, 1980 â??With regard to the first issue, the statute does not assure the consumer that collection efforts will not be undertaken by the collector within 30 days after the sending of the 809 notice. The Act prohibits the debt collector from engaging in any collection practice (until verification of the debt is provided) once the consumer informs the collector in writing of a dispute. However, notification of the dispute must occur within 30 days from the day the consumer receives the notice. (Section 809(b). ) Thus, the consumer is required to trigger the cessation of collection efforts by informing the debt collector in writing if there is a dispute.â? Eckerle, 1981 â??While section 809 entitles the debt collector to assume the debt to be valid if no written notice of dispute is received within 30 days, such assumption of validity is, at least ostensibly, for the principal purpose of relieving the collector of the duties outlined in Section 809 (b). You will further note that Section 809 (c) prohibits a court from construing a failure to dispute a debt as an admission of liability by the consumer. Essentially, the Act only requires a consumer to dispute a debt in writing within 30 days if the consumer wants to be treated as specified in Section 809 (b); there are no other consequences for failure to do so. Finally, nothing in Section 807 ( 8 ) indicates that the only â??disputesâ? to which it applies are â??disputesâ? made in accordance with Section 809 of the Act. As such, we believe that the paragraph should be read literally; if the collector knows or should know that a debt is disputed, failure to communicate this fact along with other information regarding the debt would be a violation,â? Weiss, 1986 â??Section 809 (a) specifically requires that the consumer be informed that if he or she disputes the debt, verification will be provided..... In addition, Section 809 (a) requires the debt collector to inform consumers that they have 30 days from the date of their receipt of the 809 (a) notice within which to provide a written dispute or request for verification. Arguably, the proposed dunning notice in question could be construed to suggest that consumers must provide their written dispute or verification request 30 days (or longer) from the date of receipt of the 809 (a) notice. Consumers who act on that interpretation would lose their right to verification. That effect obviously runs counter to the intent of Section 809 (a).â? Thanks again for helping me read these the correct way. So it should be clear enough now. The ONLY ramification for disputing AFTER the 30 days is that the CA may still attempt collection. (some do disagree) But they must ALSO provide validation in accordance with your dispute. .
BTW, This means any of you who get a response (from a 3rd party collector) to your DV that says "since you didn't do so within the 30 days, you may not do so now", have an instant, written, violation. It is a deceptive practice to tell you that you don't have a right when, in fact, you DO. See?
