Sent a validation request to a CA for a paid collection and this is the response I got: "Our office is in receipt of your dispute letter dated xxx. In order to complete our investigation and resolve this matter, we need your assistance. Please provide our office with the following information: Copy of Driver's License (with legible signature), Social Security Card or Identification Card. Unfortunately, without the information requested above, our office is unable to resolve this matter. Please provide thei information to our office within (15) days from the date of this letter. Upon receipt of the above-referenced infomration, our office will complete our investigation and notify you of the resolution. Please note, if you fail to provide the requested information within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter, our office will close the investigation due to your failure to provide the necessary information to resolve this matter. Etc. etc." I have already disputed this TL with the CRAs and it came back verified, so I am assuming that they have all the information they need. Additionally, I included the account number and client in my request for validation. Finally, I did include a copy of my driver's license, but had whited out the signature. Why do they need my signature? This makes me suspicious -- my guess is that they are playing a game. I have read on a collection industry discussion board that this is a way to get around validation. If one does not respond to the request for more information, then the CA uses that in court to indicate that they would have loved to comply with the request for validation, but that the consumer refused to provide them with the information that they need. Apparently, judges have ruled in favor of the CA as a result. What are the laws regarding this?
Im no expert but ill try the obvious. If you send them the letter they sent you about this collection, in my mind, that should be enough. I mean, they expected you to enclose the amount and send it back to them based on this letter. And most likely there was a perforated section that you would have included with your payment. If they would have been able to apply your payment correctly from the information they sent you, they shouldnt need further information. Maybe they dont know who you are? BS Of course they do, their playing games. hope this helps bugman
Unfortunately, this has been paid for several years and I don't have any of the original paperwork from the CA. I wish I did however, that would be a great letter back -- here is the information you needed to apply my payment, so certainly it should suffice to provide validation.
OK, I'm really new at this, but from what I've read so far, I don't think validation is the proper step to take for a paid collection. Why not just try the "nutcase" route? You might take a few minutes and do a search for "nutcase" and "paid collections", and type in "PsychDoc" to narrow it down. I bet you'll find an answer.
here is the information you needed to apply my payment, so certainly it should suffice to provide validation. merlin =========== Doing this wouldn't be to smart. If it's not yours why would you mention anything about payments?
Point well taken LB59. I'm still really curious why they feel they need my signature. Of course, being Sicilian I'm suspicious by nature.
Re: Re: CA Response To Validation Request To forge or transpose it onto a document making it appear that it's your obligation.
Re: Re: CA Response To Validation Request Since it has already been paid, what would be the point? It would seem pretty silly to open yourself up to a forgery charge over a paid $30 debt. Of course, from reading the collection agency board, it seems that some debt collectors take a request for validation as a personal affront, so I guess anything's possible.
Re: Re: CA Response To Validation Request Your name and address, the account number, is all they need. Nowhere does it say you must include proof of signature etc. I would wait about 30 days from the date they received it, and then send them an estoppel with an additional statement that their request for signatures, ss card etc is not a requirement of the FDCPA for requests for validation. And if they fail to validate, they must remove their listing from your reports. Failure of that will result in an immediate lawsuit being filed. blah blah
Re: Re: CA Response To Validation Request Since it has already been paid, what would be the point? It would seem pretty silly to open yourself up to a forgery charge over a paid $30 debt. Of course, from reading the collection agency board, it seems that some debt collectors take a request for validation as a personal affront, so I guess anything's possible ============= With a CA who knows? THE END ** *** ** LB
1* "Our office is in receipt of your dispute letter dated xxx. In order to complete our investigation and resolve this matter, we need your assistance. Please provide our office with the following information: 2*Copy of Driver's License (with legible signature), Social Security Card or Identification Card. 3*Unfortunately, without the information requested above, our office is unable to resolve this matter. Please provide the information to our office within (15) days from the date of this letter. Upon receipt of the above-referenced information, our office will complete our investigation and notify you of the resolution. 4*Please note, if you fail to provide the requested information within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter, our office will close the investigation due to your failure to provide the necessary information to resolve this matter. 5*I have already disputed this TL with the CRAs and it came back verified, so I am assuming that they have all the information they need. Additionally, I included the account number and client in my request for validation. Finally, I did include a copy of my driver's license, but had whited out the signature. 6*Why do they need my signature? This makes me suspicious -- my guess is that they are playing a game. 7*I have read on a collection industry discussion board that this is a way to get around validation. If one does not respond to the request for more information, then the CA uses that in court to indicate that they would have loved to comply with the request for validation, but that the consumer refused to provide them with the information that they need. Apparently, judges have ruled in favor of the CA as a result. 8*What are the laws regarding this? merlin ------------------------- --------------------------- 2*Never give this to a CA 3*Tough luck for them. They have 45 days before you sue. 4*Again their tough luck, 5*Never send them this 6 As a weapon to use against you. 7* But it won't get them around your lawsuit. The validation letter estoppel and the ITS already provided them with all the info they needed. I haven't seen any here say it works for The CAs. 8*FDCPA does not require consumers to assist the CA in validating. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
2*Copy of Driver's License (with legible signature), Social Security Card or Identification Card. SORRY A "LEGIBLE" SIGNATURE WOULD BE FORGERY!!!!!!
The DMV asked me a couple of times about my signature on that computer signature machine... Are you sure you don't want it "MORE" legible??? "ARE YOU SUGGESTING A SIGN WITH A "FORGED" SIGNATURE??? I HAD MY "LOUD" VOICE ON...
There is a YOUNG LADY that comes in our store that has a VERY UNUSUAL SIGNATURE... About 40 1/2 over-laping circles...I said I need a license...she said fine...signatures match!!! ...AND THE DMV ASKED "ME" IF I WANTED A MORE LEGIBLE SIGNATURE???
