I had sent 3 letters including estoppel to a ca asking for val. on a account. Today, 2 weeks after my estoppel letter, I recieved a letter saying that they had purchased this account and included copies of statements but that's all. any advice on how to handle this?
Time out. They may not have provided complete validation, but, there is no time limit for a ca to respond to validation. We go on the assumption that 30 days is time enough and hope that a judge will see it that way, if it gets that far. But no law that they have to validate in xx days.
so they could validate 6 months after they receive the validation request? that doesn't seem to uphold the spirit of the FDCPA/FCRA........
Well they could, but they must cease collection activity during this period and I'm sure if this nonsense went on for 2 - 3 months that the consumer is either going to file complaints with the proper agencies and/or sue the ca. If you dispute the listing with the cra's during this period, the ca can't legally verify it. If they do, they've got violations of both the FDCPA and FCRA. Then it's up to the consumer.
LKH, thanks for the reply. Just to give you a little more info, the letter I received today stated, " our records show an account was open in your name in 1992, with an opening balance of $84.00. They included copies of statements from '97 to 99. Nothing with my sign. on it. No application. nothing else. This account was not opened by me, but by someone else-who I know. Any more advice on how to address this next? Does this constitute validation? I have read the wOLLMAN LETTER but still am fuzzy on what is true validation.
Also forgot to mention. This is listed as "account information disputed by consumer" on my reports. Has been this way for 8 weeks. How long does this remain?
I think for it to be correct and legal validation, there must be something showing you opened the acct as in a signature on the application etc. Do a search under validation and there should be some postings of legal decisions regarding this.
validation is "competent evidence that I have some legal obligation to pay you" not just a statement. validation would be a signed copy of the application (your signature) and maybe a few cancelled checks from payments you made to the account drawn on your bank with your endorsement.
Thanks for the replies! I am still on the fence what my next move should be. Do I answer what they sent me with a f/u letter? I already sent the 15 day estoppel letter prior to receiving this response. Do I ignore what they sent me and just redispute with the CRA? Thanks again for all help!!
What was the gist of your estoppel letter? can you post it without revealing any sordid details? (for my own benefit, I've not seen a good estoppel letter yet).
I sent the one from the sample letters. Just tweeked it a bit, not much. After sending it, that's when I got a response from this particular CA.
PAE, Look under the sample letter heading, I think the estoppel is Validation letter #4. Has worked well for me on a couple of other nasties.
What they sent you still isn't competent evidence that you have some legal obligation to pay THEM is it?
I am still fuzzy on that question. That's what I wanted to find out if anyone has any SOLID answers on this question please let me know.
competent evidence would be : 1.) Your signature on a contract or application that you signed, were you promised to pay. 2.) billing statements showing purchases that you made. 3.) proof that YOU actually made the purchases re: #2 (perhaps checks that you wrote to pay your statement balances, or your signature on a receipt). But this is just MY OPINION of what validation is... You might want a second or third opinion...
I agree with LKH and PAE. Read the Wollman FTC staff opinion letter. Do a search on this board for wollman for more information. Also search for information about "spears v. brennan". [snippet] The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer. Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. -Peace, Dave
