Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? After looking at the letter you originally sent (with the lowest common denominator that they could use to respond to the request). They technically did verify. NOT THAT IT IS ACCEPTABLE VERIFICATION by any stretch of the imagination, and not that I would PERSONALLY accept it. Technically they said... Well, you may not know that you have an account with, or heard of S A L P, but maybe if I tell you that this is for an account that you had with Sears, that will jog your memory. The correct response would have been... In one of hiding's posts he had a common man dispute where he gave an example for a consumer who demanded to know how they arrived at the amount in which they are claiming, that would need to be added as well to force them to provide statements (again, the lowest common denominator to be responsive). The key is that they only need to provide the name AND address of the OC if you specifically request it, they only have to provide specifically what you mention, directly or indirectly. This is why you want to make the validation demands as specific as possible.
Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? "I am going to go ahead and request validation again, this time being very specific, even tho its been over 30 days. I am, however, going to hope they're not too bright and I'm going to claim that I AM within the 30 days since I just discovered it on my reports, along with the FTC opinion and/or case law supporting my claim that I'm within the validation period, and that slapping it on my reports was a violation. " -ID LOVE to know the recently discovered case law EXTENDING the 30 day validation period. THIS COULD change everything!
Re: Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? You totally lost me there. are you being sarcastic? (Just my asking looks like I'm offended, so just to be clear, I'm not at all.) I just want to know what you mean. I hate how written words can come off completely different from their intended meaning. If you were being sarcastic, just so you know, I realize the 30 days is up. I also realize that they know the 30 days is up. I'm thinking in terms of what a judge will think if/when they try to sue me, and the judge sees that I asked for specific proof that I owed a debt, and they were unwilling to send it, regardless of the 30 day validation period. I'm also hoping they're too dumb/lazy to put things together, do their jobs, and know the laws. I'm thinking of it as an experiment, lol. It'll be good info for the next person they do this to, dont'cha think?
Re: Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? Well, hiding, technically she *DID* request validation within the 30 days; she is just clarifying that she demanded more than a 1 sentence answer to the validation, which they provided. "Your honor, when I asked the attorney for validation, I had reason to expect a lot more than a 1 sentence answer, and I was waiting for the attorney to provide the additional documentation, to show what this alleged debt is regarding."
Re: Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? "Your honor, My client provided much more than the law requires. Because validation was never defined, we provided the information which we believed was "responsive to the consumers request." The FDCPA does is NOT a "liability" statute. Any question of true identity or responsibility for a debt, can be answered if a consumer disputes a debt with the consumer reportin agency as provided for in FCRA 623 (b). If the debtor had send a dispute, we would have conducted a "reasonable investigation" as required by the recent ruling of Johnson V MBNA. Beause the standard of 623 (b) (reasonable investigation) IS MUCH higher than a mere "informal process" as congress has described "validation", any issue of liability could have been easily cleared up during the dispute process without taking the courts valuable time. Additionally, the debtor "lost" her right to validate after the initial 30 days. We ask that this case be dismissed due to lack of evidence, and assert our right to sue the debtor for bringing this suit against us" -Devil's advocate
Re: Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? "Lack of evidence? Your Honor, I have some evidence you might want to look at before you make your decision...I have 3 continued collection attempts before they responded with their sorry validation. I have the dispute to the CRAs that they verified, and the amounts listed on each report is different, I have all kinds of FTC opinion, case law, and the actual section of the FDCPA that states what validation should be...." oh, and just to clear something up... I don't intend to sue them. ultimately, I'd like to try and settle for deletion before they decide to sue me. I really think what this comes down to is...what is the judge going to think? not what you, or I, sherman, or the NCLC thinks regarding validation. In case Sherman sues me, it is in my best interest to figure out how to convince a judge that Sherman violated the law, and that I truly thought the debt was invalid.
