Is this validation? I don't think so.

Send DV number 2. Acknowledge receipt of the attempted validation, giving them another 15 days, and if they don't provide legal validation of the debt, require them to delete the TL.

You can also strengthen your DV with a mention of your states' License and Bonding laws for collection agencies. Here is a link to your states agency licensing laws:

http://whychat.5u.com/States/states.html

 

I wouln't take the SOL on that page to be correct in all states. Kansas is being reported in correctly, as is New Jersey.

 

Is it your position that this is not your account, or that it is your account but they have not accounted for what they claim is owed?


Even though copies of old statements may not resolve all disputes, they may be sufficient for you to determine whether you are dealing with an account that is yours, or not. If it is not yours, but is being reported under your name and SSN, file police reports for id theft, and you can get it off you reports.

The statement billing addresses and dates would support either that it was being billed to an address you never lived at, or to an address you had lived at, but at a time when you were not living there, as might happen if you had moved, and a later resident applied thru CC offers sent to that address in your name.

 

Not sure what you are saying. That Why Chat page is updated consistently. If you have examples of it not being up to date, let us know. Otherwise, it is as up to date as any page could be. Any questions can be resolved by the user checking his or her SOS web site or other state approved SOL site for that state.

What do you think Kansas and NJ are supposed to be showing? Do you have information from each states' SOS which contradicts this information?

Specifics, please.

 

It depends on *WHAT* you asked for as validation.

But, never ignore receiving even an attempt at validation; otherwise, they'll claim that you created a new agreement based on receiving the documentation, and not disputing it.

 

Besides that I have been doing this long enough to know the SOL on that page are incorrect;

State Oral Written Promissory Open
New Jersey 6 6 6 6
Kansas 3 5 5 3

Examples;
http://www.cardreport.com/laws/statute-of-limitations.html
http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/statue-limitations.html
http://ihatedebt.com/DealingWithYourCreditors/DealingWithDebtCollectors/StatuteofLimitations.php

Of course your state's website will give the most current/accurate information.

 

Isn't RI wrong too? Open accounts are 10, not 3.

 

RI is 10 correct.

 

I have explained the reasons for my "SOL" data on each State's individual page. I include not only the correct statutes, but also references to other State statutes on "borrowing" and interpretation of "written" contracts.

In the case of RI, the error of the claim of a 10 year SOL has been repeated by any and all on line sources copying from each other. I have a clear explanation on the RI page with the correct statutes, just as I have on NJ and each and every one of the State pages.

 

I dont understand why a credit card is a contract for sale under UCC. Our attorney's still go by the 10 year SOL for RI.

 

Can I ask where you see in the RI statutes that it's 3 years on open accounts? I see 10 years, as you say, on most references and 4 years here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml

Thanks

Edit: found it