Hi. Well, I'm just sitting here going over the FCRA and the FDCPA in detail in preparation for my lawsuit against a CA for an old paid collection. Of course, the primary claim of my lawsuit is that they did not validate. (I sent them 2 validation letters and 1 ITS letter--they did not respond to any of them). Anyway, in FDCPA section 809, Validation of Debts, in paragraph (a) it says "Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer...a debt collector shall...UNLESS the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing... Then, paragraph (b), says "the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt...until the debt collector obtains verification..." However, it references paragraph (a) in a way that makes paragraph (b) seem contingent on (a) being true. From the way this section reads, a debt collector does not have to validate a PAID debt. This goes against everything I've read here on CNet, but it's right here in writing. Can anyone explain this? Validation is essentially the crux of my case. So, if this argument doesn't hold up...I don't have a case!
disclaimer: this is just my take on the FDCPA and FTC opinion letters in regards to it.. if you don't request validation w/in 30 days of the CA's initial contact with you, you lose your section 809 rights. The general interpretation among those that study this seems to be that those rights don't appear to be your right to validate (ie, you don't lose that right). under 809, if you dispute during this time they must cease all collection activity until they can validate. This means if your outside that 30 day window, they can continue their collection activities during your dispute. I'm not really sure what you were ideas were in regards to suing. This is just off-the-cuff, but I would have tried disputing various things about how they listed the collection on your CR, and using that as your angle. Get them on inaccurate reporting, not marking your account in dispute, etc. maybe try to get them to provide the validation of the entire acount history to prove their listing is correct. Personaly, I'm thinking you may have jumped the gun a little on this, particularly if you're just now studying the FCRA and FDCPA. Guys like Butch and Bill Bauer would probably be the best ones to talk to on this.. there's a few others as well, they were just the first ones to come to mind at the moment.
Holy Crap. I just went and looked and see that you asked me a question Jason. Sooo sorry I missed it. I'll try and see what the deal is and post as soon as I can. Just really swamped with the war and all.
Shirola, Go here: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra....php?s=&threadid=42188&highlight= validation There's no law that requires a CA to validate a debt. So trying to sue one on those grounds won't work. You're right however that they do have 5 days to notify you of your rights, after the initial communication. It's assumed that if the debt is paid there would be no initial communication after the fact. And if it's not paid they must notify you of your rights. Begin to look at going after them based upon the FCRA and reporting innacurate information, rather than trying to get them to validate. Remeber, no matter what they report - IT'S WRONG! Soon, they will pull a report to see what it is that is wrong. Then ya got em on a No PP inquiry. Sue - and then agree to drop in exchange for deletion. See? Welcome to the baord.
I agree that I should have researched it more myself instead of defaulting to the "two million people can't be wrong" approach. It's just that I have had a lot of success following advice on this board thusfar, so I really didn't question the validity of the legal assertions posted here, unfortunately until now. Let me clarify, though about the "validation" I asked for: I followed a form of the nutcase/estoppel letters (which, according to everyone is for paid collections). However, these letters are rooted in validation, and imply that not validating the account is a violation of the FCRA. Maybe the entire premise of these letters is pure intimidation tactics to get the CA to fold. Which is usually what they do; but in the event that they don't, what can you do if they are not in actual violation of any laws? From the many posts I have read, I am unable to get succinct reference to any FCRA violation for this case of an old paid collection (other than the PP pull...which I can't count on the CA doing at this point--why would they, when they're paid off). I have often read "just sue them". That's all well and good--if you know in advance that they are not going to call your bluff; but if the case proceeds to court, I would think one would want to cite concrete violations when standing in front of a judge. It looks like the FDCPA is applicable for unpaid collections, and the FCRA is generally for CRA regulation; and if you have a paid collection you are screwed (unless you are dealing with a dumb CA). Is this correct? Or can anyone cite specifically from these documents what potential violations there are for CAs who are paid? There are people on this board who sue CAs all the time (and win)...please tell me there is a legal basis!
The answers here in this thread are wrong also. You NEVER lose your right to ask for validation and during that validation period the CA is not allowed to collect before you receive validation. That means reporting to the credit bureaus and responding to requests from the CRA. See Spears v. Brennan, this case basically says that the spirit that the FDCPA and in particular that 30 day timeframe is only scoped to your right to dispute the debt and that the CA CANNOT report debts on your reports. There have been numerous threads here verifying this. In some people's interpretation they assumed that applied to section 809 also. Many people here have looked at existing case law and other interpretations and came to the conclusion that the FDCPA allows you ask for validation after the 30-day time frame. You sued for the right reason. They will settle, you'll see.
I'm definitely hoping all it will take is filing the lawsuit to get them to respond. Thanks for the vote of confidence! You know, maybe I'm a moron, but I still don't see where Spears vs Brennan is going to help me since it is about collection practices of an unpaid debt, and validation procedures only apply to unpaid debts. Arrgh! This is giving me a headache. Looking at the FCRA, it seems the only thing that might hold water is section 623, Responsibilities of furnishers of information to CRAs: (a)(1)(A) A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any CRA if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. <--By ignoring my letters, weren't they "consciously avoiding"? (a)(1)(B)(i) A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any CRA if the person has been notified by the consumer that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. <--OK, so in my case it is accurate, but if they didn't validate, how do we know that? I stated "for the record" in my letter that the account was not mine. (a)(3) If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any CRA is disputed to such a person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any CRA without notice that such information is disputed by consumer. <--They never flagged my account as "in dispute". In this case, the CRA is TU, which they never do that anyway. Can anyone see any problems with this? I read on this board a lot of smoke & mirrors legal jargon that sounds very impressive to the untrained ear, but I really do want to have a solid case based on definitive violations in the event this thing goes forward. Thanks again!
? About FDCPA of Debts Thanks, but again, that still doesn't address paid accounts. I'm beginning to see that the real answer is "there is no answer", though no one will come out and say it. That's ok. I guess I'll just have to summons the hubris necessary to file the suit based solely on ambiguous legal references, and hope that the CA will settle beforehand. I normally like to have my flanks covered better than that, but I suppose I don't have a choice. Thanks anyway.
