The section in the FDCPA that deals with validation (809) seems to keep it constrained to that initial 30 day window.. Is there anywhere that actually says CA's have to honor validation requests after that 30 day window (ie, old collections still unpaid)? I see 809(c) mentions missing that 30 day window isn't an admission of liabilty, but is there something with more meat to it that I've missed? or is a validation request after the 30 day window based on the concept that should this go to court they have no admissable evidence to offer (vs an FDCPA violation)?
Does it prohibit validation demands after the 30 day window after initial contact by CA? No, it does not. So if it is not prohibited by law then it is permissable under the law. All the 30 day window does is to establish things that are prohibited or demanded by law if the debtor demands validation during that 30 day period. Nothing else. I don't think so. No, I don't think that is true either. A demand for validation is simply that and nothing more.
Bill just gave you the best answer there is Jason. As far as finding something with more meat to it, no, I don't think so. 809 Section (C) is all there is, but that's all you need.
thanks for the answer guys.. I've got a few collections from over 2 years ago, and I doubt they'd be able to validate (pure conjecture on my part though).If they don't/can't honor a request for validation outside the 30 day window, there's no FDCPA violation for me to leverage. My gut in these matters has always been similiar to what bill and some others suggest: don't tell them how to their job, as you may just get what you ask for. All the "credit repair" sample letters around the net that come right out of the gate firing both barrels, siting FCRA, etc, always struck me as blatanly disingenuinos and even counter productive (why inthe world tell them specificly how to avoid shooting themsleves?). I prefer giving the other party the opportunity to hang themselves. With this sort of approach in mind, I'm trying to figure out what step 2 would be when they come back from my request for validation without being able to honor it (note that I haven't requested validation yet). FDCPA violations would have been a lot easier to ulimately counter them with when it happened Any suggestions or pointers? Thanks again jason
Well, I came to exactly the same conclusions you just did a long time ago. Argueing with credit bureaus is little more than an exercise in frustration and futility for the simple reason that no matter which way I turned all I got was some kind of stall or non answer. It didn't used to be that way before the big boys bought up all the local credit bureaus. One could dispute, offer logical arguments and win. One of the best was that a collection agency could not possibly validate the debt because all they had was 3rd party information and that is heresay and not admissable. They fell for that argument like a ton of bricks every time. Then the big boys bought them out and the obfuscation and pettifoggery started and it was useless. So I turned to the validation letter and that didn't work all that often. Some times it would and some times it wouldn't. So then I ran into the estoppel letter and I thought that was the best thing since peanut butter and jelly and soon found out that was no better either. So I knew something else had to be done and I started developing that. I've ended up with a series of about 4 or 5 letters depending on circumstances that works most of the time. So far all of the time but no matter how good letters are they are going to fail sooner or later. The main reason they fail is because some collectors will ignore everything you send them and then what to do? So I learned how to sue them and win doing that too. Only problem I really have now is they all want to settle before I actually get them to court and under the gun. Someday one of them will get stupid and want to go explain to a Federal Judge and Jury why they broke the law so many times in dealing with just one situation. I've usually been able to develop about 5 or 6 or more violations and wrap them all into one big lawsuit and never have been able to get one of them to actually be willing to go get sued.
