Check out this Dispute Response!

I would definitely wait until the SOL passes on it, then sue them. Otherwise, they will just counterclaim.

 

They will still try to counter-claim... The only thing that waiting past the SOL does is gives him a defense against the account.

 

"I disputed a smallish under (500.00) CC charge off , SOL expires in a couple of months. Sent Dispute letter and then disputed with the CRAs when GC came back."

-Was the "validation" letter sent to the collection agency within the 30 days immediately following THEIR initial contact with you??

-Yesterday i received a lovely little form-ish letter from the CA that purchased the account. Nothing with any info from the OC. Just one piece of paper with the following. My balance + interest and account number and the following verbage."

-What was the basis of your "validaiton request"?

"(Also, they have never marked th account "in dipute")"

-Have they reported in the time period from when they received the validation request until the time they sent a response?

-By the way, the response they sent IS verification. Whether it is "responsive to the consumers request" (NCLC-FDCPA) is another question.

"Our office has answered your recently filed credit dispute , indicating that your personal info closely matches our records as provided by the original creditor. This account file shows as valid and unpaid at this time your account contract was sold, and purchased by our client."

-IF the request for validation was based on "not mine" or "prove its mine", then they have a STRONG arguement that what they provided IS validaiton(FTC letters aside) therefore they are allowed to continue collection efforts. (in their mind)

"If you have a valid dispute, (This is where is started the serious laughter!) please provide us a copy right away (I did retards!.) If you do not, our records indicate you are liable for the debt referenced above with all interest and costs, if any."

-Repeated "validation" notices sent BY a collection agency DOES NOT EXTEND OR RESTART the validation period/right. (Miller FTC Letter- "period to request validation NOT extended by subsequent validation notices)

"A valid dispute might be any one of the following:

1) A previously filed police report blah blah ID theft

2) A payment receipt or letter indicating monies paid on this account, but not properly applied for the full or partial amount due.

3) A previously filed BK blah blah

4)Other information which would prove this account to be invalid."

IF THIS WAS CONTAINED in the ORIGINAL letter from the collection agency, it would be a violation of FDCPA 809 because it "imposed additional burdons on the consumer." not required by 809- (Frey v. Satter, Beyer, Spires)


"Can I start drafting my ITS?"

-You can start to at anytime, BUT MAKE SURE they are actually in violation!

"Am I correct that they have continued collection activity without validating the debt with me?"

-YES, you are correct. HOWEVER, it seems they MIGHT have provided "verification" (which is the requirement) FDCPA 809

"I have not gone the lawsuit route yet, but am willing. Should I wait until the SOL truly expires before serving them?"

-REGARDLESS OF THE SOL, the consumer can avail themselves of the protections of the FDCPA/FCRA. The statutes are designed to protect the consumer from collection ACTIVITY, REGARDLESS OF LIABILITY of a debt.

-Here is a scenerio, a debt collector calls ALL DAY LONG (and it IS harrassment) EVERYDAY. Would you wait until 4-6 years for the SOL to expire until you did something about it??

-Study the laws carefully.

-You can email me if you need more assistance in the lawsuit arena.

 

Re: Re: Check out this Dispute Response!

"I appreciate your response, but most of it seems to be counter to what I have learned over the past 9 months of my CR journey."

-Not a surprise Butch can attest to this fact as well!!

"Didn't Johnson V MBNA clarify validation, or at least what wasn't validation (a printout from the CA)."

-THIS IS A CASE OF "reasonable investigation" which is covered under FCRA 623 (b). NOT A VALIDATION CASE.

-A "Reasonable investigation" is MUCH more "in depth" then "validation/verification." The court defined "investigation" as "investigation," is defined as "detailed inquiry or systematic examination" Thus, the plain meaning of "investigation" clearly requires some degree of careful inquiry by creditors."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra/03-1235.pdf -case cite

"We therefore hold that § 1681s-2(b)(1) requires creditors, after receiving notice of a consumer dispute from a credit reporting agency, to conduct a reasonable investigation of their records to
determine whether the disputed information can be verified.."

-Validation/verification is still undefined, but does not raise to the level of "investigation"

-Validation is ONLY A SMALL part of at least 2 LARGE and POWERFUL consumer protection laws. In my humble opinion, TOO MUCH "power" is given to the validaiton process by consumers.

 

Re: Re: Check out this Dispute Response!

OK - just when I had started feeling like I had some of this figured out!!
Validation was requested. They basically sent him a letter saying, your information is similar to that in our database. Tell us what you don't agree with and we'll check on it.
If I'm not mistaken, he did tell them - he did not recognize the account.
They still did not send him anything to show what was owed and what it was for.

What's up with this "Did you request validation within the 30 day timeframe" PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG AND SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, but not requesting validation within the 30 day timeframe is not an admission that it is indeed your debt.

I am really trying to understand all this. I am on my last few negative TL's - the tough ones - and I want to make sure I have it all right.

 

Re: Re: Re: Check out this Dispute Response!

Your right, it is not an admission of liability as stated in 809 (c).

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

I am trying to understand this also, and can't understand why this section is always pointed to as proof you can request validation after the 30 days mention in 809 (b).

809 (c) mentions nothing about the timefame of 809 (b) being extended. It merely points out that, if you were to go to court over the debt, the fact that you did not request validation could not be used against you. You would still be able to offer a defense at that time, but it would be too late to request validation.

809 (b) clearly states that there is a 30 day timeframe to submit a request for validation. The FTC opinion letters mention it over and over, and it is mentioned in many court cases. If there is a case that overturns this, I would love to see it. It would give us a definite answer to this question. Most courts will look at the plain language of the statute and use that if there is nothing ambiguous.

I would love to see the answer on this also. Someone please post the statute or case that extends the 30 day timeframe of 809 (b).

 

Re: Re: Re: Check out this Dispute Response!

"Validation was requested. They basically sent him a letter saying, your information is similar to that in our database. Tell us what you don't agree with and we'll check on it."

-YES, THIS CAN BE "Verification/validation"because it was "responsive to the consumers request." -NCLC FDCPA. A validation/verification request has to be VERY specific. If the account is TRULY not yours, BUT it is on your credit report or they are attempting to collect from you, a claim of "its not me" in a validation letter can be easily overcome by looking at the account info on the computer, seeing your name and info, and saying "yup, its you!"

-BUT, if the account IS NOT YOURS, and you truly ARE NOT THE RIGHT person, then a validation/verification request should include not only "its not me", but WHY IT IS NOT YOURS.

-A great timely example of this is cases of ID Theft. When you are victim of ID Theft, someone uses your info to open an account right? SO ALL THE INFO WOULD INDICATE IT IS YOUR ACCOUNT. So a request for validation/verification based on a "not mine" is easily overcome right?

-BUT, a request for validation/verification of not mine BECAUSE (for example) "this is a fraudulent account, I never had this account (including #) with this creditor. I may have been a victim of ID Theft" will OVERCOME any "mere itemization of what the collector already has."- (Wollman FTC letter)

"If I'm not mistaken, he did tell them - he did not recognize the account. They still did not send him anything to show what was owed and what it was for."

-If the request/dispute was "not mine" and did not request amount etc, they would not have to "volunteer" this info.

-It is a common miconception "validation/verification"
is meant to prove the liability of a debt (ie as in a court of law)

-THE PURPOSE of "Validation/verification" minimize the instances of mistaken identity of a debtor or mistakes over the amount or existence of the debt. IT IS AN INFORMAL METHOD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION THAT CONSERVES TAX DOLLARS AND JUDICIAL RESOURCES"- NCLC FDCPA / Udell FTC letter / Senate Report #382 / 1987

-In other words, this is informal and not too techical method. If the consumer says its not their account, but the info on the collectors computer and account info from the creditor all match, its their account! (in the collectors mind) PROVING it would require court, and the "level of proof" would be FORMAL and WAY above "validation/verification."

"What's up with this "Did you request validation within the 30 day timeframe" PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG AND SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, but not requesting validation within the 30 day timeframe is not an admission that it is indeed your debt."

-The "validation/verification" right of the consumer "...runs from the date of receipt of the notice of validation rights by consumer and is not extended by the collectors subsequent action." -NCLC FDCPA 5.7.3.1 / Woosley & Miller FTC letters

-EVEN if the debt collector sends REPEATED validation notices, IT DOES NOT RESTART the validation period. -Woosley & Miller FTC opinion letter

-In other words, the 30 day validation period BEGINS after the consumer receives the INITIAL contact with the collector in which the validation notice was contained, and runs for 30 days. THEN "*EXPIRES". (*a consumer can request validation at anytime, however, any "effective" protection of the validation right is UNAVAILABLE outside the validation period)

-IF the consumer sends a request for "validation/verification" BEFORE or AFTER the "validation period", THE DEBT COLLECTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FDCPA 809 (b)-(cease collection activity).

-They do however, have to report the account as disputed to the reporting agency if they report it after reciept of ANY validaiton request, expired or not. This ALSO applies to ORAL DISPUTES- FDCPA 807 (8)

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#807

-Liability of a debt is IRRELEVENT in relation to the FDCPA/FCRA. The courts have said the protection of the federal statutes are available to the consumer REGARDLESS OF THE LIABILITY OF THE DEBT. IT IS THE COLLECTION/REPORTING ACTIONS themselves which are governed.

-An example I use to depict this is a consumer suing a collection agency for violations of the FDCPA.
Lets just say it was numerous harrassing phone calls.

In court the consumer can say "yup your honor, sure as a bear squats in the woods, THIS IS MY DEBT. I owe it, not doubt about it!" and still PREVAIL if the collection agency violated any of the consumer protection acts.(in this case harrassing phone calls) Making sure the statute of limitations has expired can prevent a countersuit. Although, a collection agency filing a countersuit AFTER LOSING a debt collection harrassment suit DOES NOT LOOK ALL THAT WELL FOR THEM

"I am really trying to understand all this. I am on my last few negative TL's - the tough ones - and I want to make sure I have it all right"

-I feel your pain What I post is not opinion (most the time anyway) and is based on current case law, statutes, and directly from the National Consumer Law Center publications. (which are concidered the "bible" for collection harrassment attornies). It is hard to accept a lot of what I post because it is new and has not really been posted before.

-I would encourage everyone to research the info I post, and anyone else for that matter, and educate themselves