I have read and re-read the "what is validation" post. Further into the post it states that a CA does not have a time limit on validation, and that any violations by the CA comes from continued collection attempts until they have validated. Would the debt entry on your CR be considered a collection attempt? They are in effect, continuing to list a debt that they have not yet validated. Also I have seen mention of risks to validation. Is there any real danger to the validation process that out weighs the benefits? Thanks, MAG
There is an FCRA opinion letter that states such. The danger to the validation process (especially if its a large debt) is that they DO validate, and then they will start ratcheting up the collection process.
As per the Cass FTC Opinion, reporting on the credit report is collection activity. However, whether it is ruled out completely depends on the situation. CA #1 posts the trade line the day they obtain the account, CA #1 sends you a collection notice at the close of business that day (or the next day). Their trade line could take a week to be placed on your credit report (or even longer, depending on the CRA), you receive the collection notice with the validation clause on day #5, and mail a response to them, which they receive on day #10. When they receive the response on day #10, they are REQUIRED under the FCRA, and under the FDCPA (false credit reporting, including failure to notate that the account is in dispute), to perform an UPDATE to what they have already reported. HOWEVER, they can't do a manual VERIFICATION if you dispute the item with the CRA when you see it being reported, because even under MBNA's 'cursory review' interpretation that they tried to use in Johnson v. MBNA, they still had to do *SOME* manual review of the file, which under the Cass Opinion would be activity for the purpose of collection. So... Why a lot of people preach the interlocking of the dispute/validation processes is simple, if we can force any updates under the manual review and verification section which *IS* collection activity, and not under the 'automated' updating which is supposedly done on a set schedule, without a direct manual interaction. This effectively puts a 30-day limit on them providing the validation of the account, the 30-days provided by the FCRA to investigate the dispute and report back to the CRA. As for risks... You need to look at it the way that they will, take the amount that they stand to make, take the amount that they'll have to pay, including staff pay, paperwork, printing, etc, how far they are from you (the farther the better for you, since that'll typically mean that they need to hire outside council, if they do decide to attempt to sue you). If the alleged debt is high enough to make them feel that they could make some $, even if you fought the process, and made them actually have an attorney to appear in court on their behalf, then they will probably be stubborn enough to stick it out the whole way through the process. But the more you make them work, the more likely they will be to move on to the next fish in the pond, and dump your account on the next sucker that they do a mass account sale to...
I have read and re-read the "what is validation" post. Further into the post it states that a CA does not have a time limit on validation, and that any violations by the CA comes from continued collection attempts until they have validated. Would the debt entry on your CR be considered a collection attempt? They are in effect, continuing to list a debt that they have not yet validated. Also I have seen mention of risks to validation. Is there any real danger to the validation process that out weighs the benefits? Thanks, MAG ****************************************************** NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ******************************************************* >This post bumped for MAG
