I know this is being discussed all over the board, but I didn't want to *hijack* anybody's thread. Okay, I sent a validation letter on 1/13 for an old gas bill and an old electric bill listed as 2 different collection accounts on EQ. They are being reported by the same CA. On 1/27 I received a copy of payment history for the gas and a copy of a letter the electric company sent to the CA basically stating that "this customer owes XXX after applying the deposit." I then sent a second request to CA stating that what they provided was not evidence that this was mine. They replied and said that according to FDCPA it *was* enough to verify it as mine and they were going to report to EQ that these accounts were in dispute. They did list as in dispute in January and on a recent copy of my EQ report it appears there is an inquiry from them on 2/3/03. I know a CA can pull your report, but should they do this when they report as disputed? Just wondering. Thanks for the help.
Here's my opinion. The gas history MAY be enough...from what I've read utilities are different in that it is generally accepted that connecting those are done via phone - and there may not be a signed contract. I don't think the elec is...how are you supposed to check to see if they gave you credit for all your payments? Look up Spears v Brennan According to the FDCPA its enough - tell 'em not to bs a bs'er . There is NOTHING in the FDCPA that says what validation is. It talks about verification, but not validation if you dispute the debt. I can't even begin to answer you about pulling a report with it being in dispute. Technically you can dispute til the cows come home, but if you owe it (the gas), you owe it, and they could be within their right. Unilaterally disputing doesn't make it go away. Just my .02
Thanks, jlynn, for your input. I truly appreciate it. If either comes back "verified" through EQ, I plan on offering a settlement only in exchange for a deletion. The accounts are from 1998, so they may take me up on it. Here's to hoping... BTW, the electric company was Missouri Public Service but the letter they sent to the CA "verifying" the amount still owed came from Aquila Credit and Collections and had a different account # listed. Don't know what to make of that.
Re: Re: CA pulls hard inqu http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). 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. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer They didn't validate.
