Incomplete validation? What can I do now? On February 3rd 2008 I sent out a DV to a CA. I asked for identification of OC, proof they own this debt, payment history starting with OC and a copy of original signed loan agreement or credit ap. I received a response from them on February 13th. This is what they provided me: A rental agreement for the period of 01/15/05 - 12/31/05 with no identifying information other than names and signatures, an application to rent with all of my identifying information on it dated 01/11/04 and a move in/move out inspection form with a stated move in date of 01/15/05,names of renters and an address,no other identifying information on it,this form is supposed to be proof of the amount of the debt apparently but has no date on it other than 5/1 to 6/28 and includes written notation NWP closing bill May/June and an amount for that added in and there are also no resident signatures on this inspection form. I noticed the last time I was in the area that this property had been bought out by another company. I can see that these papers the CA sent me were faxed to them from the property 10/30/06, apparently when they aquired the debt. None of this properly validates anything and none of the dates coincide. (I hope my explanation of it made sense) It has been over 30 days since their receipt of my DV request and this is all I have received. My question is who do I contact now? CRA or CA? I had previously disputed this debt with the CRA and they 'verified' it.
The problem is, they think they have properly validated, and are free to continue collection efforts now. What is missing?
Sorry to break this to you but, while it may not meet any legal level of proof, it looks like you've received validation sufficient to meet the FDCPA requirements (i.e. the name and address of the OC as well as an accounting of the debt they are claiming). Your choice now, is to try and get the OC to pull back the account (as in "oops, we thought it was you, sorry!") or ignore it and wait 'til it goes to court where you can try to convince the judge that it wasn't you who ran up whatever charges they are trying to get you to pay. Your third option is to try and get the CA to break some FDCPA rules (e.g. have them insult you, threaten legal action they can't take, etc.) until you have enough to take them to court for, but, my guess (from the cheap seats) is that's not going to happen (because they have enough to take you to court on) so your best bet is to see if you can negotiate a settlement.
Thank you for the feedback. I don't think they've proven they own the debt, the application to rent is dated January 2004, while the leasing agreement is dated January 2005, there's nothing showing the supposed debt hasn't been paid, also the only paper indicating the monetary amount has only May 1 - June 28, no year anywhere else indicated. I've read many many different opinions on the subject of validation on these boards. Isn't there a requirement that the information must be complete and accurate? If not, couldn't any business you've ever dealt with then claim you owe them money and not have to prove it? I'm wondering this also because of another collection I'm dealing with. This other collection is from a preschool I had my daughter at. The manager or whatever her position was who ran the school gave me minor problems here and there. Well, only that if I didn't bring my daughter in the earlier am hours she wouldn't let me drop her off. No where in their policy did it state the children had to be there by a certain time. It was a preschool/daycare center that ran from the usual 7am - 630 pm. On days that I wasn't going to pick up my daughter up until the evening I wouldn't drop her off before 10 or 11 am (I didn't work during the day) so I could spend time with her. After it happened a few times (being denied a service that I was paying for) I moved her to another school. There was no policy about giving a certain amount of notice either. At my daughter's new school I met a woman who used to have her child at the same school I had just removed my daughter from. She was surprised at what I said since she had frequently dropped her child off much later than I even attempted to. So anyways, a year and a half later I get a collections notice that I owed the preschool the same amount of a weeks tuition! I sent them a DV and have received no reply. But my point/question was that just anybody can say you owe them money? They have to provide complete, accurate proof right?
I have to agree w/CCBob here, it does sound like they provided "adequate" validation; (actually more than most provide). Per your description of the information, it almost sounds like it would hold up in court also. Per your other question; "But my point/question was that just anybody can say you owe them money? They have to provide complete, accurate proof right?" Yes, per our legal system anybody can "say" you owe them, but if it comes to it they must satisfy the burden of proof in court. Whether that happens depends upon many factors.
Actually, there is no black and white definition of what is validation, and there is not statutory language indicating "complete and accurate". I think everyone has pretty much taken the stance that validation is what would hold up in court to prove you owe a debt. If they have provided documents from the OC, then they are off to a good start. If you need more information, then there is nothing stopping you from continuing to push the CA for more information. But at this point, as was said before, the CA thinks they have met their burden of proof and is free to continue collecting so the ball is in your court. As far as the daycare goes, its been years since I had to deal with them, but most do have a cancellation clause - maybe yours didn't, but if at some point they provided your contract indicating such, then you might be on the hook, unless you argued your reasons why you should be released from that obligation.
The FDCPA (15 USC 1692g) describes what they must provide to be able to continue collection activity after a dispute and request for validation. From what you describe, it sounds like they have done that. Whether that would hold up in court? Only the judge will know. My guess is that more likely than not, it would unless you could find some legal procedural way to exclude it from evidence or prove fraud. But again, none of that matters until they sue you for it. In the meantime, they'll be able to keep an open collection tradeline on your credit reports for the 7 years allowed by law. It's not clear what your goal is. In any case, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe the options I listed above aren't your most likely ones for dealing with this.
They haven't proven they own or were assigned the debt. They completely ignored that aspect of it. Not to mention I don't owe it. Why would anyone pay someone who has no proven right to collect, as of yet? (IMHO)
I'm a little confused here; was this a lease or rental agreement? What exactly is the nature if the debt they claim you owe?
Your confusing or mixing several principles. You asked for validation and they provided it pursuant to the FDCPA. They've satisfied that requirement so they can continue collection activities. That they are permitted to continue collection activities may or may not have anything to do with your obligation to pay them. Those are separate (albeit, related) issues. You don't have to pay them anything if you don't think they have any right to collect. At the same time, they have every legal right to try and collect from you. If push comes to shove, you'll both be in front of a judge explaining your positions, unless you can persuade the OC to go somewhere else (i.e. you are not the person they are looking for) before they sue you. The CA is just acting on behalf of information provided by the OC. The CA appears to have met the requirement to continue collection activities and will probably continue to do so. You can tell them it is inconvenient to receive phone calls at any time of the day and they have to stop calling you, but don't be surprised if they later send you a summons to appear in court. It is there that they have to prove to the judge (not to you) that they have a right to collect and that you are the person from whom they are to collect. Until you get to court, none of that sort of "proof" matters.
Since they have mailed you documentation from the OC, they obviously have a right to collect - whether their relationship with the OC is one that they bought the debt, or were assigned the debt is irrelevant.
Thank you everyone for your input on this. I will at a later date post a follow up on the situation. As far as them calling me or mailing notices constantly I've actually never had that problem with any collections. (Thank goodness) They always just mail a couple notices and that's it. Also, all of them are a couple of years old except one whom I got the OC to delete through a complaint with the BBB. Thank you again to everyone who posted.
