Can I ask for letters of validation on items appearing on my credit report for several years already? Or, is this an avenue only open to me within 30 days of the original notification of the money owed the credit agency? Thanking you in advance for any help given.
time limit I live in Montana. But the debts were incurred in California. Most items are 2 -6 years old. Any information on where I can find the laws governing my situation? Thank you.
Seeing an account on your credit report is not first contact. Furthermore, if after first contact (possibly by phone), the CA failed to send you the required letter notifying you of your right to dispute and request validation, based on the FDCPA wording, that 30 day period during which if you dispute they can no longer assume the debt is valid only ends 30 days from you RECEIVING their letter notifying you of that right. In practice, CAs often respond to validation requests after 30 days, even while claiming they don't have to. They also often claim they don't have to validate, regardless of your timely request, sometimes claiming they sent it "months ago", possibly to some other address. If they know they sent it to some other address at which you did not live (and if they have procedures in place to ensure FDCPA compliance, they should know what address they sent such a letter), then their claim may be a defense against FDCPA violation for not sending the required letter, but it is not one for failing to respond properly to your validation request. Their response to disputes and validation is probably more based on their legal compliance policies (what they think they can get away with, and how they plan to justify it if they get caught) than on whether your request was actually timely. If you have any doubt about the legitimacy of a debt, you dispute and request validation. If they claim they don't have to because it is not timely, their choice is still to either provide some semblence of validation anyway, or base their defense on their procedures documenting that they usually send such a letter. This does not, however, get them off for failing to mark a debt in dispute, and it does not relieve them of their FCRA obligations to report accurately. Those also can be the basis for suit.
Both California and Montana are in the 9th Circuit, thus Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County is a controlling case. "We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [*15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt." You can certainly ask for validation, but unless the collection notices were sent to an old address (and you can therefore refute receipt), then they are under no obligation to provide validation.
They are still under obligation to report accurately, and if they verify damaging inaccurate disputed information, you could sue on that basis. Furthermore, FACTA, which was only enacted recently, allows for disputing directly with any data furnisher. The court was apparently convinced that the Mahons both received statements and the CA's notification letter, and their case appears to be only based on their FDCPA claim that they didn't receive that letter. The OC's records indicated sending statements to their current address, and the CA's records indicated sending the initial notification letter and dunning letters to their current address. In addition, on receiving their validation request, even though not timely, the CA obtained and sent validation anyway. The court apparently found no reason to penalize the CA when it appeared they had in fact notified the Mahons of their dispute rights, it appeared the Mahons had already received documentation of the debt and had not disputed anything, and it appeared their claim may not have been brought in good faith. In short, it did not appear that the CA had violated FDCPA by their activities in attempting to collect the debt. Although you are better off disputing and requesting validation in a timely manner, there is no guarantee that consumers will always benefit from that opportunity based on common JDB tactics, including overshadowing the required notification by claiming that the consumer has to disprove the debt rather than the debt collector having to prove it.
