After 35 days, in response to validation letter, CA sent a photocopy of a signed credit application from 1997 that kid filled out on college campus. Fine print at bottom says "First USA will review my credit history and income to determine whether I qualify for a card, and if so, my credit line". Also included are about 10 credit card statements with a cover letter stating they have enclosed "information to the above referenced claim". There is no indication that they own the debt. Original credit line years ago was about $1,000 -- CA is saying balance is nearly $3,500! Kid lives in PA and last paid the bill sometime in 2003 and didn't make regular payments. What now? Is this proper validation? I've read the validation posts, but Im confused and don't know what to do now. Must the CA send full account history and proof they own the debt to comply with validation? The credit application seems generic. It has the college's name on the top. Kid was 19 when it was completed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks so much!
No. Signature alone doesn't cut it. They also have to demonstrate how they came to the balance they allege that is owed.
2003 places the SOL as 2007 for PA... This is kid's account, and they're sending you the collection notices? Or you're just asking for kid? If they're sending you the collection notices, I'ld demand to know under which basis they believe that you are responsible for kid's finances, after kid has hit the age of maturity. The purpose of validation is two-fold. 1) determine the responsible party - application with signature accomplishes this portion. 2) determine that the amount is complete, accurate, and legal - the contract, all statements from the last time that the account had a zero balance, and a balance sheet showing how any post-collection charges that are allowed by the contract and/or state law are computed, accomplish this portion.
If the account didn't have a zero balance before the first statement that they sent, then it wasn't complete. There is a twisted logistical reason which they've come up with to send the validation at 30+5 days from when the validation was sent. More than likely, they're interpreting 809(b) to mean that any future demands for validation will be untimely, if they respond to the initial validation request with something after the 30 day window expires. YOUR position is that since their validation is not complete, they still haven't validated the original request, therefore all the rights under the initial validation including the 809(b) cease of collection activity. While they aren't required to maintain the complete statements for the entire history of the account themselves, they are required by the statute to OBTAIN *FROM THE ALLEGED ORIGINAL CREDITOR* AND MAIL the validation to the consumer.
What I did when I had a somewhat similar situation, CA validated 2xxish on a $3,xxxish alleged bill. Was sat down with Excel, plopped in the amounts on the statements, made sure that those amounts balanced out. Sent an audit demanding validation of the $7xxish in balance (previous balance on the first statement) which was prior to the first invoice they provided. validation of the amount which they were claiming in the statements which were missing between the second and third statements which they provided (by the exact amount). validation of the difference between the amount which they claimed was the final statement amount on the last statement, and what they claimed was the current balance. validation of the amount of all the other charges which they were trying to claim, and their legality under the law. You get the idea, make them think that they're getting the auditing that Arthur Anderson should have given Enron. But you (or kid) will want to respond ASAP. Until they know otherwise, they can presume that their validation was complete, and acceptable to you (or kid), and may be able to get a court to believe that by not contesting the validation quickly enough, he certified that the validation was correct. There was a major discussion of this topic on another board while this board was down.
