I have been reading these boards for quite a while now and im more confused then ever when it comes to Validation. I live in California Some posters on this board say that PROPER Validation need only contain OC name account number and charge-off amount. Yet others say this is NOT proper Validation. The Validation I got from MCM was a Xerox copy of a statement that had the charge off amount and the finance charge amount that didn't even equal to the amount they are asking me for. They are asking for payment of 3,074.00 The first 30 days past due on this bill is October 2005 - that is what is says on my Credit Report And if this IS proper Validation what would be a good Settlement I can write them up?
The definition of "proper" depends on the context. If you are disputing a debt that a collection agency is trying to collect on, then the CA can't pursue collection activities until... If you're trying to prove it in a court of law, the rules of evidence might come into play.
Ultimately though it's up to judges as to what they consider "proper". If he/she is ceditor friendly any piece of paper showing anything relating to an account is considered proper. Humane, consumer friendly judges will require original, signed applications, account histories and some other documentation that it is indeed a proper validation.
This is a pet peeve of mine that I just vented about in another post (see "go with the flow"). There are a lot of other credit forums that are delusional in how reality works. They swear up and down (often angrily) that a CA needs to send you account histories, detailed billing records, signed contracts, affidavits from company executives, your blood type, fingerprints, etc etc. They are WRONG. Then someone on the forum will helpfully offer up a "sample letter" to use that's chock-full of legal threats, law citations, and ramblings about how difficult they've made your life. All of this is garbage. What constitutes "validation" is not clearly defined. About the only thing that's been made clear (by way of FTC opinion) is that the documentation must come from the OC. It is *not* acceptable for the CA to send a printout from their own database showing that you owe something, since this defeats the purpose of validation. So long story short, the requirements for validation are extremely low. If it has your name and an amount reasonably close to the amount demanded, it's probably acceptable. If not, send back another letter telling them amount is nowhere remotely close and that they have not validated the debt. When it comes to court, the requirements change. The requirements for establishing that a debt is yours in court are more complex. That's when you'll probably need to see signed contracts and account histories. They'll want to negotiate in settlement. If you offer 50%, they'll act offended and say they will "generously" accept 75%. If you offer 90%, they'll say they can't go below 95%. If your first offer is 20%, they may balk and demand 50%. You may or may not want to make a counter-offer to their offer: You offer 20% in 12 payments, they demand 60% in four payments, you offer 50% in three payments, they accept. YMMV.
That's what negotiation is all about. You offer lower than what you're willing to pay, they offer more than what they'll really take. At some point it gets to a number you can both live with.
