Hi Gang, Notice I did not say request. Recently we've been talking about this so called 30 day time limit on the CA to provide said validation, when in fact there is no 30 day time limit. http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...s=&postid=199797&highlight=is+born#post199797 During our validation process it is critically important that we approach this from a number of different angles at the same time. To send a val demand straight to the OC or CA and sit and wait for an answer is an exercise in futility. After reading THOUSANDS of posts (lol) I think many make this mistake, so lets discuss it. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (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. Some, including me at one point, have misinterpreted this to mean that the CA has only 30 days in which to provide validation. Each mention of the 30 day time limit in 809 refers to the 30 days YOU have to initiate your dispute. On the other hand there is a 30 day time limit imposed on the CRA. Here's the law; From the FCRA: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. In the above thread MindCrime pointed something and I thought it deserved it's own thread. Since MC was SOOO eloquent in this explanation I'm reprinting it here (without permission - lol) "Although there is no mention of "time" in the FDCPA when speaking of valdation of a debt, the FCRA does address this issue. Although the addressing of the issue is in reference to a consumer initiating a dispute through the CRA, it is also "linked" or in reference to when a consumer sends a CA a validation request, and follows that up with a consumer initiated dispute through the CRA. As we all know the CRA has 30 days to contact the CA, verify if the account is being reported correctly or not, and report back to the consumer as such. Now, the FTC addresses the issue of what is considered "continued collection activity", which is placing a collection account on a consumers report during the initial 30 day validation period when validation has been requested, but not "produced" by the CA. So, to wrap this package up, if the consumer sends a validation request to the CA, then disputes the account through the CRA, the CA cannot legally verify that account to the CRA, which leaves them no other (legal) option other than to delete, which would come within 30 days from date of dispute. Thus the 30 day "rule" is born". Once we decide to launch a val demand to a CA we must SIMULTANEOUSLY send a dispute to the CRA. The CRA then has 5 days to notify the CA that there is a problem. It's actually the CRA that has the time limit not the CA. If we fail in also notifying the CRA of the dispute that's why val demands are getting ignored, placated, stalled or otherwise sending you silly junk that does not comply with proper validation. If you wait until the first 30 days is up AND THEN notify the CRA, your 30 days must start all over again. Also, recent case law has opined that you DO NOT have a private right of action until you have notified the CRA. So, for ALL val demands be sure to ALSO notify the CRA. ALL of them. If they are reporting to all 3 CRA's you now have 4 CRRR's to send.
Butch, Thanks for the clarification. I think this may explain some of my recent successes, i.e. no response from CA, but item got deleted. I disputed with the CRAs on May 31 and requested validation on Jun 10. Next round I will do it simultaneously and report the results to everyone. Matt
An additional note; On your very FIRST dispute to the CRA, make sure you include a statement that if they do verify the debt you want a completer procedures analysis. AND a copy of the required certification included with your result letter. IMPORTANT - This will let them know that their work on your case just got more time consuming. Since CRA's are notoreously lazy they may be more inclined to just delete instaed of go through all this LEGALLY MANDATED CRAP! lol It will also save some time cause if they do verify you won't have to start from that point asking for procedures and the infamous "certification". If we all start playing off the same page here it won't be long before one of us actually gets this certification. We all need to see what they are using for this. We're all in the same church just different pughs. Just workin on strategy
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura Butch, This seems to have worked for me. I disputed a CA listing with EQ on 6/7 and sent a validation request to the CA, OSI/Palisades, on 6/24. The listing has been deleted as of 7/4 from EQ but still showing on EX where I haven't yet disputed said listing.
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura I understand Butch's issue here. I dealt with the same thing when putting together our small claims lawsuit against a CA as I was going line by line through the FCRA and FDCPA to list the counts. So many have so confidently asserted their claim that the CAs have 30 days to validate that I had accepted this as fact. However, it became troublesome in actually drafting the lawsuit. I'm not sure how that is going to ultimately pan out, but at least we have a few other counts to hang our hats on. In dealing with a different CA, I've been trying to do a better job of giving them opportunities to rack up violations, in case the leverage becomes necessary. Here was my dilemma. The CA is required to note the account as "in dispute" after I request validation from them or I have an automatic violation. This seemed an easy one. So, I decided to wait to dispute with the CRA until AFTER 30 days had expired from the time I requested validation from the CA. This CA is only reporting to EXP and EXP always notes anything I dispute with them as "in dispute." If this came down to a court case, how would I prove the "in dispute" status originated from the CRA and not from the CA? I requested validation from the CA on 6/17. If it matters, we requested validation within the first 30 days of the first notice. (Even though it is a 5 year old account.) We received a computer printout of the account direct from the OC, but no signed agreement. Would this work? 1.Print a copy of the EXP report now. 2.Dispute the account with EXP. (Any thoughts as to whether "incorrect info" or "not mine" might be better?") 3.Print another copy of the EXP report after putting the account in dispute. Would this hold up in court as evidence that the CRA put the account in dispute in response to my dispute with them rather than that the CA put the account in dispute? Thanks for any light anyone can shed on this one. DemPooches
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura You are correct, Butch. This is when you also look to your state laws. For example, Texas has a state "FDCPA" law that does mandate 30 days as a time limit. So you always want to review your state's laws and see if they're tighter than the Federal ones.
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura This may be a dumb question - but - what exactly does a complete procedure analysis consist of? Are the CRA's required to send you this if you request it? If so, I think we should all ask for these things - let's make them DO THEIR JOB!
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura I think it might be helpful to some to read the FCBA (Fair Credit Billing Act). It, in addtion to the FDCPA and the FRCA, it adds to the mix. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcb/fcb.pdf
Butch, The validation methodology seems to have various views as to how to go about it. Some have said that you should not contact both the CA and the CRB at the same time. Do the CA first, wait for validation and if improper or no validation, then you have ammo for the CRB to delete. If you contact the CRB letting them do verification (since they don't validate, instead they verify, the trade line item as disputed), you diminish your chances of winning, if you ultimately have to sue the CA (you have nothing directly from them). The proponents of this theory say it will weaken the cause because it's the CA that has to "validate" - the true proof of whether they can legally collect or not. By letting the CRB verify, they will contact the CA, but it could turn out to be a "rubber stamp" type of verification, like yes the CA said the info is accurate. The CA is pivotal in getting a line removed as nothing will be corrected till the CA either doesn't respond at all to the CRB in 30 days or requests to have it removed. I thought attacking from two vantage points at the same time is better than attacking from only one, just common sense - make both the CA and the CRB spin their wheels at the same time and if they don't have the facts, they are bound to trip up in some way. So Butch you are saying that it's best to do both, validation of CA and verification of CRB simultaneously - don't wait. The reason is the 30 day clock according to the FCRA begins, based on you contacting the CRB, which does not apply to the CA. Essentially, the CA can take their sweet time. Is that correct? Can you expound on this some more? It will really help clear up unanswered concerns in this area. Also in this thread you mentioned two new terms or concepts that I had not encountered before. What is "Completer Procedures and Analysis" & "the required certification"? How should that be worded in the first validation letter to the CA. Never heard of these before, can you shed more light on this. Thanks! John
A procedural analysis is an explanation from the cra on how they verified the item, was it by phone or mail etc., who they verified it with, etc. But, as far as the "required certification" goes, the cra is not required to obtain any certification of the acct authenticity unless it is an item that was previously deleted and then later reinserted.
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura I am also interested in an answer to this. It seems to me that, while the CA or OC doesn't need to respond in 30 days, they cannot report an account which is in dispute to the cra's before they do respond. SO,... if you contact both the oc and cra's at the same time, it basically extends the 30 days to the oc's as well, because they cannot give the rubber stamp "certification" the cra's need on the account without validation. Just trying to think aloud...feel free to correct me on any of this.
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura SK, Hey, I'm glad this idea sparked some thought. There are always several ways that usually bring the end result, however, there is usually one that might be more time consuming, but that brings in the best and most productive results based on the time that has been expended. Better do it right the first time, then have to do it again and again, especially when you have not one, but potentially 3 CRB's to deal with in the process. No such thing as the "one" perfect answer for all situations, just one that is the most productive.
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura John, You bring up some good questions; "The validation methodology seems to have various views as to how to go about it. Some have said that you should not contact both the CA and the CRB at the same time. Do the CA first, wait for validation and if improper or no validation, then you have ammo for the CRB to delete." All you have at this point is YOUR request to the CA that they validate and YOUR assertion that they did not respond. This is hardly proof, as far as the CRA is concerned, that they did not, in fact, respond. For example; how would the CRA know that you didn't exclude the CA's response and are merely asserting they didn't respond. So what they will do is launch their own investigation into the matter after you notify them (CRA) that there is a dispute. Also, the CA is under no obligation to provide validation. If they don't though they MUST stop collection activity, which includes reporting to the CRA. So if you want your val demand to be ignored indefinitely, or worse, responded to with some silly computer printout, then by all means notify ONLY the CA. It is the FCRA that initiates the 30 day time limit. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. The first thing I find rather strange is the RE-investigation. The implication is that; even though this is your first dispute they are RE-investigating. Have they investigated before this? NO. But I digress. If the CRA cannot get verification from the CA WITHIN 30 days the must delete. And the CA best not verify to the CRA unless they can validate. I guess I'm a bit of a proponent of a tight time frame with these people. I'm sick and tired of seeing people struggle with the same jackass CA for 2 years.
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura I really think and keeps coming back as a question, that this seems to be something to give consideration to. If the CA "rubber stamps" the verification to the CRB, then they have to provide accurate proper validation to you. If the CA tells the CRB that it is an accurate verification and the CA doesn't provide you with legal validation, they are caught in the act of misrepresentation - "pie in face". Ammunition! If the CA doesn't respond back to the CRB at all, then the CRB cannot provide you with completer procedures analysis. The CA's request to the CRB to delete, would be "a mute point" (unnecessary) and the CRB would/should delete the item - it would appear to be the clear thing for them to do as technically and legally the CRB would have to delete item in thirty days by default without proper validation. If the analysis indicates a computer printout and the CRB accepts it as verification, then the CRB is actually attesting to accurate verification, however that verification is not validation. In essense the CA has not properly validated to you or the CRB. Hence, the CA and the CRB have colaborated together in giving you two pieces of evidence that will help the motion to dismiss the trade line item. You are pinning the CRB and CA against each other with regard to accurate and true information. The final result is that the info has to clearly indicate that it is correct by the FCRA guide lines both are governed by. Both of their results have to coincide in that time frame that is set by getting the CRB in the loop initially - the 30 days!
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura Here's a line from our letters demanding validation; Section 1681 s-2(b) of the FCRA creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information, (Nelson v. Chase Manhattan). Nelson v. Chase talks about a specific section, Section 1681 s-2 (b) § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. In order to trigger the necessary legal component that creates your private right of action you must involve the CRA, as the above states. With these 2 components in mind WHY WAIT. Why not just go ahead and UNLOAD your AMMO all at once in both directions. And in fact recent information from the FTC states that the OC can be held responsible for the illegal actions of their CA. If I do another one of these I will; a) Demand validation from the CA b) Notify the OC that their CA may be operating illegally c) Notify ALL 3 CRA's that the item is in dispute And Optionally, d) Copy the AG's office e) Copy the FTC f) Copy my attorney STAFF (lol)
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura Now here's a question; Have you read Nelson V. Chase? Spears V. Brennan and the FTC interview find posted by Breeze a few days ago? If not, it is required reading and will clarify a lot. Experts?
Re: Demanding Validation (procedura When I was in the validation mode, after not getting a response from gulf state and them reinserting it under OSI, I sent a certified letter to the oc advising them that they could be held liable for the illegal practices of gulf state, and if it became necessary to commence legal action against gulf state, they would be a named defendant also. Response = I was completely ignored. Gulf State a short time later did comply with my wishes and delete all entries and confirm to me in writing that the acct was closed never to reappear again.
