It seems that they are technically only required to give you what is stated in the FCDPA. These laws only seem to be protocol to keep the credit/collection agencies in check. The only real validation happens in a court of law or if you are willing to bluff them into thinking that you will take legal action. In a court of law you are held to the rigorous tests of the courts evidence. In reality I believe that they should only be allowed to supply proof that will undergo the scrutiny of our courts. It isnt fair, but look who writes the laws.
Lowfico, The verification process goes like this for a CRA : 1)The consumer asks the CRA to investigate 2)THe CRA communicates with the member asking if the debt exists,3)The member is only oblitgated to tell them ,the name of the company, the amount and who they are speaking to and there telephone #. CiThe company or person reporting does not have to supply actual proof, there word is all that is necessary or a document stating the above. The Validation process under the FDCPA goes like this: 1) Consumer asks for validation. 2)Collecton agency is supposed to provide the name of the creditor and the amount owed. The must supply this proof within 5 days of request, unless the debt has already been paid or if it is already stated in the original letter. No where in the law does it actually say that they must send you something with your signature on it. Of course a court of law would want more proof of debt than a computer printout. r
========================================================================== Maybe the best way is file the claim first and let them decide if they want to take the easy route or do it the hard way!
=============================================================================================================== If you asked for such proof and they didn't provide it wouldn't it look bad on them if they took it to court? ?
----------------------------------------------- You need to make it clear to them that there is no way they can collect out side the court: You need to also make it plain to them that they can not collect anything with out proper validation either in or outside of court: They need to know that you the score !
Ibrown54 You are right, it does look bad in my opinion. i would think that almost any judge would find it dipicable also. Here is the problem though and here is a scenario to simplify it: Lets say that you have asked for validation from the cra or ca. They have not supplied what you asked for in your detailed validation letter. They are not in the business of sending out validation letters, they are in the business of collecting or reporting information (depending if they are a ca or a cra). Now I believe that they believe that most people are not going to push the issue. if one does push the issue, they are either going to show proof or not. You better be damn sure that they cant supply proof before pushing the issue, because if they do supply proof how do you think the judge is going to look at your case then. Do you think that he will even care wether or not the ca/cra violated your rights to validation? I dont think he will care that much if they provide proof in the courtroom. On the other hand we must look at the other variables involved in a situation such as this. For instance, is it worth a ca's time to go to court over a $50 dollar debt. Probably not, so they might defend their pocket books first. On the other hand a CRA doesnt have to worry wether or not the debt is true. They are only required to verify debt with their members. They are not in the collection business. There best interests is looking out for their good name. Of course, if the debt isnt really yours in the first place then you have nothing to worry about, Do you?
Well, just got back in from Mexico a few minutes ago and am catching up on mail and emails. But I have a couple of questions on this thread. 1. Why are you going to sue the collection agency or creditor and/or credit bureau? On what grounds? 2. If you are going to sue them, then you should be sueing them over something other than the debt, and if you do sue over something other than the debt, then you would most assuredly not allow the fact of the debt to ever arise in court. You would immediately object to any statement or attempt to make statement about the debt whatever. "Your Honor! I object! This line of testimony has no bearing on this issue whatever! This is about the fact that SleazeBag Collection Agency violated the FDCPA (whatever it is they did or didn't do) and insist that the only allowable answer is did you or did you not do this thing that I am bringing suit about?" No other testimony should be allowed. It's yes or no, guilty or not guilty. And that should be the end of the matter. That is, if you filed your case correctly. Tell me what you think Bill Bauer
