Nodding with Dave on the validation sources. Competent evidence is something different. Competent evidence that YOU owe THEM isn't validation. That's to do with the account having been transferred/sold/assigned or whatever. Documentation that would indicate you owe the CA the money and not the OC. Just because a CA says you owe them money, what makes that so? That's the competent evidence. Something that would show your legal obligation to pay the CA and not the OC. You had an agreement or contract with the OC -- so how did it get to a CA? Did you agree to it? Do you REALLY have to pay the CA or do they just say so? They need to back up that claim. You wouldn't wanna pay the wrong person would you? Sassy
Sassy or Dave, I hear what your saying, but I think my biggest problem is I don't know what direction to take now is. Is there some letter that you can recommend I send now to answer their feeble attempt at validation? Or do I just ignore it? It is listed on 2 out 3 reports, but listed as "account info disputed by consumer" I would love to get it removed. The OC listing is showing sold/transferred. I contacted them and was told to talk to CA since they don't own the debt anymore. Any other thoughts?
Well here is the Spears v Brennan case. Read the very last contention Issue Four: Failure to Cease Debt Collection where it says: _______________________________________ A review of the document (the validation response) reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spearsâ?? loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears. See footnote We reverse the trial courtâ??s entry of summary judgment in favor of Brennan on this issue. __________________________________________ So I would take one of the validation letters, add that "I require proper validation that I owe the alleged debt - and not just some bills or statements from 97&98 in my name" ....I would put in some refrence to the above case where since they have NOT provided proper validation, they are in violation of the FDCPA because of their continued debt collection activity (namely reporting to the CRA's) without providing proper validation.... and I would demand they provide me with such adequate validation or delete the listing. -Peace, Dave
