Should I dispute validity of a trade line with the CRA - AND request validation from the creditor at the same time? i.e. send letters at the same time?
NO you send out your validation letter CRRR then wait 30 days and then send a dispute letter off to CRA. Here is a good understanding of this. "If the collection comes back as "verified" from the credit bureaus, you now have proof of further collection activity from the collection agency. (The assumption is that the credit bureau contacted the collection agency to verify the debt.) Since the collection agency did not validate the debt, further collection activity is a violation of the FDCPA. Contact the credit bureaus, and tell them that the creditors did not verify the debts under the FDCPA, and send copies of your proof. Request the method of verification, which is your right under the FCRA. It is crucial to contact the credit bureaus before filing a lawsuit. Make sure you state that the collection agency did not respond to your request for debt validation."
ok, so to clarify: send validation letter to the ORIGINAL CREDITOR, then wait for 30 days - then send a validation letter to the CRA. what's the difference between 'verified' and 'validated'?
The CA validates the debt to you in order to show that the debt is valid and your responsibility. The CA verifies the debt to the CRA to verify that the information sent by the CRA to the CA (or OC) is, in fact, correct, or, if incorrect, the CA sends the correct information back to the CRA so they can update the record.
NO an OC does not have to validate BUT a JDB does have to get validation from the OC and then send it to you. I asked this question many moons ago as one of my lawyers requested verification instead of validation. I was told it is the same thing if requesting a proof of debt. As for verification with CRA's, that is what happens when you dispute and it comes back verified. Woofer
All of the above assumes that a) the creditor signs/returns the CRRR slip BUT does not respond with verification of debt within the 30 days - correct? Once 30 days has lapsed, what form of proof do I have (besides the CRRR slip - assuming that it is returned) to present to the CRA? Thanks
The way it works is that in order to have an FDCPA violation to sue over, the CA has to report or update the trade line with the CRA before they provide you with validation of the debt. So, to see if they're paying attention you want to: a) request validation with the CA b) dispute the tradeline with the CRA c) see if the CA updates the tradeline as valid before they send you the validation. 30-days is not a legal requirement for the CA.
How long do CA's have to validate then? Why do some people here say to dispute with the CRA's as soon as you get certified mail return receipts from the debt validation requests? NG
CAs have no obligation to validate. The catch is that if they don't validate, they can't continue collection activities. If the do, it's an FDCPA violation. When you dispute is up to you. Technically, the CA should pull the tradeline from your report once they get your request for validation. If they don't pull it, at the very least, they can't verify it challenged by the CRA in response to a CRA dispute. If the CA, after they have received but not yet responded to your dispute and request for validation, verifies the corresponding collection tradeline, that's an FDCPA violation. So if you wait 30 days, they might have already sent your validation information and so they could verify the tradeline. If you wait til you receive the green post card, then you don't give them much time and have a greater chance of catching them in a bind (i.e. an FDCPA violation). It all depends on what you want to accomplish.
ccbob, Thanks for the quick reply. What I want to accomplish is getting CA accounts removed ASAP. From your response, it appears I should send DV requests CMRRR and as soon as I receive the green receipts, dispute with the CRA's. Correct? Any other insights are appreciated. NG
The goal is to get them to mark it as being in dispute if the request for validation is untimely. They don't have to validate it if it's outside the 30 day window and they can continue collection activity. That includes verifying it. Really, the only purpose of an untimely request is the hope that they will flush the account rather than deal with a somewhat savvy consumer. That is because they must mark the account as being in dispute even if you dispute it only through the credit reporting agencies. The better way is to include additional language in the request regarding how they're reporting. Bring something to the table in terms of allegations.
Apex mentions something that deserves clarification. While the CA has no particular time limit in which they must respond to a request for validation. The [alleged] debtor MUST dispute and request validation within 30 days of first contact by the CA to preserve their FDCPA rights.
I have not received any contact. I pulled my 3 reports and found out that way. So how about my situation? NG
You can allege your first contact was during review of your credit reports and thus, your request would be timely. That is often a good way to go about it.
