30 day validation period

I don't understand the question" validate past the 30
day period"
As I understand you can request a creditor to validate the debt and they are allowed 30 days after receipt of your request to validate. This came out of an oppinion letter by the FTC. The FTC is no longer publishing oppinions as often as they once did but
this particular oppinion is still regarded as the basis
for our validation concept. CA's will say anything if they think they can get away with it. This is why we need to use a carefuly written letter.

 

I think what people forget is The consumer laws are not the end all of consumer law. There are other seperate laws that apply in addition to the FDCPA-FCRA-Etc.

 

I think edoggie is referring to after the 30-days has lapsed from the initial written notification from the CA notifying you that if you don't write them back to dispute the debt within 30 days, they will presume that the debt is valid.

I could be wrong, but I think that's the "after" 30-day period he is referring to.

I may run-in to such a situation as well...

Scenario:

-I receive initial written notification from CA indicating that if I don't respond within 30 days to dispute validity of debt, they will presume it is valid.

-I ignore their letter and several months pass.

-I decide to write them to request validation 5 months after receiving their initial notification.

-They call me and say, sorry pal, you didn't dispute validity of the debt within 30 days after we first notified you. We are now working under the presumption that the debt is valid.

-I say, hogwash, I can request validation at anytime and you have 30 days to provide proper validation. Get your law straight. CLICK

I think right before "click" is were edoggie would like to then back himself up by citing a federal regulation, FTC opinion letter, or legal precedent.

 

This has been questioned a number of times but has not been completely resolved. In one thread it was reasonably decided that the 30 days starts from when the OC/CA can prove (or convince da judge) that you were notified. Since they don't send via certified mail you have a (at least plausable) defense in saying you never received such notice.

However, afaik, from the date you've acknowledged contact, you have 30 days to file a dispute. Several people keep posting that the 30-day dispute period can be started any time but they have not suported it beyond "because we say so."

See my arguement concerning Spears v. Brennan that STILL hasn't been responded to: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=277299#post277299


My God! I'm sounding like the Kid! Am I possessed? Do I have multiple personality disorder and one of them really is, is... AGGGH, help PsychDoc.

 

This question has been addressed exhaustively.

(Although we realize your search feature may not be working).

You need to understand the concept of "Prima Facie" evidence.

Prima Facie: Latin for "on its face." A prima facie case is one that at first glance presents sufficient evidence for the plaintiff to win.

All someone/anyone has to do is send you a bill (a presentment). If it goes unanswered the concept establishes that "at first glance" it appears to be true that you owe the debt.

If the presentment goes unanswered for what the courts have determined to be "a reasonable time", (30 days) then they may presume the debt IS valid.

LK is right. Once 30 days has elapsed then the concept of Prima Facie evidence kicks in. At this point the CA is entitled to presume the debt to be valid, and can proceed accordingly.

Here's the important thing to remember about Prima Facie Evidence;

The concept is effective ONLY until you rebutt this presumption. Once you do their entitlement to the presumption that the debt is valid IS GONE and they must back up their assertion with proof.

Again;

YOU MAY REBUTT THEIR PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEBT IS VALID ANYTIME.

 

OK, maybe my LASIK is wearing off. All I see is:

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

"(b) 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.

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. "

What (c) says is that the CA can't take you to court for a judgement and use your non-dispute to win.

 

Here's the section;

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

That said; if you get a letter from a CA that says you may dispute ONLY within the first 30 days or you lose your rights, you may have a violation of the FDCPA.


§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.

 

.

 

Exactly right! You may rebutt. But your protections under § 809 [15 USC 1692g] paragraph (b) are GONE, namely that the CA must provide validation and stop collection efforts until the debt is validated.

Did you read the section in Spears V. Brennan where this is spelled out?

0

 

We already agreed that you pretty much control the "first contact." But what about someone who 5 weeks ago spoke with the CA several times and the CA can show several phone bills of 5 minutes each, or if the person sent a letter saying they can't pay now.... And only now finds creditnet.com and learns about their rights. (Actually, if it isn't, it might be worthwhile to put a warning in one of the first 3 posts to not respond to collection activities until one knows the ramifications of doing so.)

0

 

LOL - but it's better to be smarter than the CA's by your knowing more rather than their knowing less. Sooner or later there will be a smart CA.

Besides, I'd hate to see someone think they had a CA on a violation, say for example 'continued collection activities', when they really didn't. People reading this board have a whole spectrum of experience and knowledge. I just wouldn't want someone to misconstrue the phrase "you can demand validation at anytime" to mean more than what it really does.

Sorry for my passion.

0

 

Case law does not matter according to GEORGE, the guy with 13,000 posts. LOL

 

Zero,

Please post the pertinent section of Spears that causes you concern. Let's take a look.

 

From: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=277299#post277299

In reading Spears v. Brennan, http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html , the court clearly sides with the 30-day time-limit arguement.

"15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) mandates in no uncertain terms that a debtor has thirty days to dispute the validity of a debt."

And "Because Brennan sent the debt collection notice to Spears on October 24, 1996, the hearing, rescheduled thirty-four days after the debt collection notice was sent, could well have been scheduled outside the thirty-day debt validation period. If Spears received the debt collection notice on or before October 27, 1996, there could have been no undercutting of the thirty-day debt validation period and no violation of the FDCPA when Brennan scheduled the November 27, 1996 hearing. If, on the other hand, Spears received the debt collection notice after October 27, 1996, Brennan violated the FDCPA by scheduling the November 27, 1996 hearing on the debt collection claim and obtaining a default judgment against Spears on that date, thereby undercutting the thirty-day debt validation period."


So, the issue boils down to one of when does the 30-day period start. For all practical purposes - when the debtor says it does unless the creditor can prove otherwise, ie a letter from the debtor or a CRRR to the debtor.

0

(Edit + fixed the link.)

 

Ok, have read with interest.

Let me see if I get this straight by using an example:

-CA sends me initial notification that they are collecting on debt and I have 30 days to dispute or they will presume debt is valid.

-I ignore CA's letter and don't respond.

-5 months later I find CreditNet and send CA a validation letter CRRR telling them I've pulled my credit report and see that they are claiming that I owe them money and to validate such claim within 30 days.

-Sometime within the 30 days after CA signs for receipt of my validation letter, CA calls me to continue collection activities. Maybe I even get some continued collection activity iin writing inside the 30-day window outlined in my validation request.

Now, am I to assume that if CA can prove that I received their initial letter notifying me of their claim and that I failed to respond, then they can continue their collection activities inside the 30 days of receipt of my validation request without being in violation for continuing collection activities?

Thus, in contrast, if they can't prove that I ever rec'd notification of their claim, then my request for validation is effective and any continued collection efforts prior to their validating is a violation?

Is that what this is boiling down to?

Reason I'm asking is I sent a CA a validation letter CRRR that they rec'd 10 days ago and I have a voicemail message from them this morning asking me to call back. Let's assume they sent me initial notification of their claim a year ago and I never responded.

If I do decide to call them back, I'd like to understand if they continue their collection efforts whether they are committing a violation or not....and whether the determination of such lies solely on whether one can prove that I rec'd their written notification a year ago.

Thanks in advance.

Lefty

 

Lefty:

If I'm reading it right, and I would love to be proven wrong on this one, it might very well boil down to:

CA: We sent notice to deadbeat 326 days ago and he didn't request validation within the 30 days.
You: Vulture Co. never sent me anything.
CA: Your honor, why would we buy a debt and then not try to collect on it?
You: Your honor, why would I ignore such a notice and forfeit my rights to validation under the FDCPA?

Given lack of evidence either way, the judge will have to make a, uh, judgement as to who is telling the truth. Hopefully, s/he will (a) be at least somewhat consumer friendly and (b) familiar enough with the FDCPA to understand it is a consumer protection act and reasonable to err on the side of the consumer, and not necessarily on the side of the defendant.

0

 

Kalinka:
There is NO 30 day time-limit for CA's to validate. The CA can take as long as they want, years - even never, to validate. It's just that if you have properly requested validation, they can't continue collection efforts until they do validate.

 

I have a situation...Debt is out of SOL, collection agency has not tried to contact me. I have sent validation letter...they have ignored. Before Creditnet I had a phone conversation with them, they said they sent initial letter in july of 2001. I did not live at the address thy have at that time, they did not care and still refuse to validate. This debt will fall off my report late next year. I have been approved for a mortgage but must pay all collections off before closing, including this one...I will spit blood before I pay this debt, which i truly do not believe is mine....what should be the next step here?