Hi. So, the original debt was for about $1600. I do owe the money to the original creditor. I sent a nutcase letter to the collection agency demanding validation. They replied with a copy of the bill from the original creditor, a polite letter, and an itemization showing that in addition to the $1600 principal, I also owe $1175 as "interest/LPCS." Nowhere on the bill that they sent is the late fee mentioned. They also didn't provide any proof of their relationship to the original creditor...other than the fact that they somehow got a copy of the bill. So, my tentative plan is to write them back and basically say (in more formal language): "Look, I only owed $1600, and chances are good that you bought the debt for a lot less than that. So send me a letter promising to remove this from my credit history, and I'll give you $1000." What do you think? The debt is four years old. It's one of two major items left on my credit reports that are really causing me a problem when I apply for new credit. The collection agency's two letters so far (the original one, and the response to my nutcase letter) have been polite. In fact, the most recent letter simply says: "Enclosed please find copies of the documents you have requested to substantiate your creditor's claim. Thank you for your inquiry. Please contact us again if we can be of further assistance." Yes, fine, it's verification, not validation. But the truth is that I owe the money to the original creditor, and it's looking to me like the relationship between the OC and the agency is legit. I realize that I could keep pushing and demand documentation of that relationship, and so on, but I don't want to get into a process that might or might work out in my favor a couple of years from now; I want the darn thing taken off my record soon. Thoughts?
There is no statutory difference in the FDCPA between validation and verification. Note that § 809 is called "Validation of Debts" but the text actually reads (emphasis added): "(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."
Well, I think it's a CA...the word 'agencies' is in the name... The debt was incurred in California, although I'm not a resident of that state anymore. The debt is related to a phone bill, so technically I don't think there was a written agreement, so I guess that makes the SOL two years for a verbal agreement or four years for an 'open account'...either way, seems like I'd be approaching the limit...but can I invoke that to have the item removed from my credit history?
Civil procedure (including SOL) is based on the state you're filed against in, so California wouldn't generally be the relevant state in this case.
Uh...why not? And what kind of filing are we talking about? Nobody is threatening to take me to court.
I didn't mention SOL. I did say that the debt was four years old, but I was just throwing that out there. I don't know if it's relevant.
Have you disputed the associated tradeline appearing on your credit report through the CRA's? Also, is the CA's account marked as being disputed by consumer? If not to the former, dispute it and see if they verify. If not to the latter, that is an FDCPA violation and an FCRA violation, but you need to establish damages. In other words, if you could obtain a decline for credit and the above was true, you could institute a civil action or simply use the violation as leverage.
apexcrsrv: I did dispute the item. Then I received a notice from Transunion that the item had been 'corrected.' The correction was that the item used to show $2775 without any further explanation; now it clarifies that $1600 is the principal, and the rest is "interest/LPCS." So, it's not marked as 'being disputed.' I think the idea is that their clarification of the principal/interest breakdown is considered their response to the dispute, and it's now on me to dispute it again if I have reason to do so.
