pibb lol!! "spit blood". I'm in the same situation: preapproved for a mortgage; have to pay all collection before closing.
Glad you liked that edoggie, I am so over them being able to do this kind of thing. I know if I do not get it solved soon...I WILL have to pay it to satisfy the requirements of my mortgage approval!! I will fight this at closing til death!! or til they tell me pay it or no house...all for 200.. that is not mine!!! I have NEVER had Bell-South Mobility!
§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; Let's re-write it; The New Section 809, according to Butch; lol Unless the consumer disputes WITHIN the first 30 days, the collector may assume the debt to be valid. It's truly that simple. Congress did recognize this as an area of confusion. Consistent with how they operate, instead of clarifying the section they just added section (c) to solve the confusion problem, because it's easier. (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." Try your search buttons. A lot has been posted about this 30 day issue.
Butch, in your humble opinion, if a debtor request validation 5 months after receiving initial notification from CA....and then CA continues collection efforts after receiving validation request, but prior to validating....has the CA committed a violation of any federal regulation under FDCPA? I'm only wanting to hear another person's opinion and the sound reasoning for such. I will make my own decisions and will not look to anyone if I make the wrong decision. I am just undecided right now if whether continued collection efforts are a violation or not under the scenario I've mentioned above. One thing I'm not....is I'm not a finger-pointer. Thanks in advance.
Thanks, Butch...I have a much better understanding now. I understand the concept of prima facie evidence...you did well with your analysis. Thanks again.
If you dispute this (or disputed) with the CRAs the CA cannot verify it before providing validation. That is considered continued collection activity. If they do, you have them on a violation. Gib
After digesting the sound reasoning and analysis provided herein, I conclude that if the CA continues collection efforts subsequent to receiving a request for validation, but prior to validating...then such CA is indeed in violation under the FDCPA for continuing collection efforts. Thanks all.
Check this article out from the Journal of Texas Consumer Law http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/CLJ_Fall.html In the article "I Owe How Much" outlines what a collector can and cannot do regarding validation. See the footnotes for case law on the subject at hand.
Re: Re: 30 day validation period There is one portion of the above-mentioned article that helped me more fully understand the validation process. I couldn't copy it from the pdf document, but it's the last paragraph on page 5, and continues on page 6. I think it describes very well the collectors obligation to the debtor in the validation process.
My opinion is that one can Dispute or ask for Validation after the first 30 days. That .pdf document referenced, talking about Texas Case law, it stated in there toward the end that it was"certainly conceivable that a comsumer might pay a collection, and then later ask for verification of the debt.." Also, I ask for validation (although at the time I didn't know that's what it was) about 8 months later, and in a response letter, the CA said something to the effect: "You recently contacted our office and disptued the validity of the above-referenced account..." So it appears they admit themselves that one can ask for Dispute/Validation after the 30 day period. My BIG Question is this: Whether you are within the first 30 days or not, when it says the CA must STOP Collection Activity until the validation response is mailed to the consumer ... is reporting a Derog Tradeline in your CR to the CRA's considered "collection activity" .... ... of do the CA's only have to mark the Tradeline/Account as "In Dispute" And, is the rule on this particular point actually different depending on if you dispute within first 30 days vs. after the 30 days. Also, If I say I never received the first notice, how do I prove it - or does the CA have to prove the sent it? FedUp2003
Have you read Butch's post, "What is validation?" I think it addresses almost all your questions. I'm only on page 7 out of 9, but I think you'll find your answers there if you're willing to wade through some "stuff."
I think I've got it: It's not part of the FCRA or FDCPA, but in some Opinion Letter from the FTC or from some Court Case.... 1st - That a CA can not report a Derog Tradeline (i.e. a Collection) within the first 30 days of a CA being assigned an account, or rather, 30 days after sending their Dunning Letter or 30 days that the Consumer should have received Dunning Letter. Why, cause that would be considered "forcing" the debtor to pay the debt before their initial 30 day period for Dispute and Validation is up. Some Opinion or Court letter said "CA's use reporting a Collection to the CRA's as leverage to get a consumer to pay the debt, therefore it is considered a violation of the FDCPA because it's forcing the consumer to pay before he's had a chance to dispute... etc ..." ... Or is it ONLY IF the consumer sends in the dispute/validation request within that first 30 days, that the CA is not allowed to report this to the CRA's? Either way, seems most CA's will not report to the CRA's within first 30 days with or without the consumer dispute, because if consumer does dispute on day 29, then the CA has to turn around and have it removed if they had already reported it. This seems to make sense, cause any Dunning Letter I've ever seen states that the CA is expecting either a Dispute or full payment within 30 days, or in my case 40 days, and if no reply is sent they will assume the debt to be valid and will then report the collection activity to the CRA's. So, dispute within first 30 days and it doesn't get reported while the CA is Validating. But, what if Dunning Letter is lost in mail, mis-directed, or consumer never receives it? WHO/WHAT proves it was sent/received and when? But this may be digressing. 2nd - I believe a consumer CAN Dispute/ask for Validation after 30 days, but if the CA has already reported this to the CRA's all they have to do is mark the account as "In Dispute," NOT neccessarily remove it. 3rd - The CA never has to respond to a Validation, and no time limits, but while they are not responding, the have to mark account as "In Dispute" with the CRA's and stop collection activity. They can only resume collection activity one the requested validation info is mailed back to the consumer. ... I'd say to prove whether or not CA sent the first letter, or if the consumer ever received it, would have to be heard in court, and as others have stated, the Judge would probably lean toward the CA having to PROVE they sent letter and take the Consumer on his word that they never received it... ... and how would/could this affect the rights afforded the Consumer for the first 30 days? If the CA could not prove they sent the first Dunning Letter, then that means when I did finally send my dispute, that I should be afforded the same 30 day time limit to either dispute the debt, or pay the debt in full and thereby be spared from have the item reported to the CRA's .... ... This is the angle/arguement I want to use with a collection activity I have. I honestly did not receive a Dunning Notice or first letter, and once I did discover the collection, it was paid immediately and therefore I acted as though I was within the first 30 days and the collection should NOT be reported to the CRA's by the CA. --- Will this arguement fly???? OK, back to original thought(s): So, this all boils down to, WHY Validate? I've seen lots of info on what Validation is, but Why do it? Also, what consitutes good/full/perfect Validation. What all information/documentation/proof is consumer allowed to ask for and what does CA have to provide? My guesses on WHY: 1 - For those situations when a CA has actually got the wrong person or wrong debt/account linked with a person who is really not obligated to the debt. 2 - To buy some time, maybe to get the money up to pay the debt off before the CA reports to the CRA's. 3 - Hope that the CA will not spend the time/effort to Validate or is unable to, and therefore Tradeline has to be removed from CR. 4 - Hope to entice the CA to commit one or more FCRA/FDCPA violataions, after which they can be sued and collect money and/or use violations as leverage to get items Deleted. --------- Is this about right? Can someone answer some the questions/parts I'm not sure about. I read and re-read all the links/threads, but there is so much information and a lot of it contradicts each other, I'm basically looking for either a Cut and Dry legal answer if there are any, OR Success stories and what exact steps did you use or parts of this discussion did you use. Thanks! FedUp2003
2nd - I believe a consumer CAN Dispute/ask for Validation after 30 days, but if the CA has already reported this to the CRA's all they have to do is mark the account as "In Dispute," NOT neccessarily remove it. 3rd - The CA never has to respond to a Validation, and no time limits, but while they are not responding, the have to mark account as "In Dispute" with the CRA's and stop collection activity. They can only resume collection activity one the requested validation info is mailed back to the consumer. FedUp2003 ================ 2*They do if you sue them. all they have to do is mark the account as "In Dispute,AND WHAT DOES THIS SOLVE????????? 3*But reporting the account is a collection activity. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
1* it looks to me that it would still be considered as collection activity if CA continues to report the TL to the CRAs. No matter what is noted on the TL. 2*the FTC realizes that continued reporting of the TL to the CRAs is not permissible. So, in this case, I do believe that any CA or OC should stop reporting to the CRAs until they have validated with the consumer. 3*again, in the opinion letter part IV, it mentions that reporting to the CRAs any debt disputed with a CA constitues continued collection activity, therefore a violation. 4*So from those points raised, I would argue that the CA should stop reporting the TL with any CRAs. gagosila
2nd - I believe a consumer CAN Dispute/ask for Validation after 30 days, but if the CA has already reported this to the CRA's all they have to do is mark the account as "In Dispute," NOT necessarily remove it. FedUp2003 ================ Below is why marking in dispute is not all a CA has to do and why they must remove it. Verification = FCRA Validation = FDCPA They are 2 different processes that both lead to proof of debt -- prove it or remove it. sassyinaz THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
I see what you are saying. However, my question is, can you send a Validation of Debt package to court appointed collection agencies? I have traffic tickets that are unpaid and have been sent to collections. They will not release my driver's license to me until I pay these fines. Does the FDCPA apply to these types of debts?
Hi ASI, Welcome aboard. However, this thread has been innactive for a very LLOOOONG time. Most of these folks are now in Nursing Homes. : )~
