There has been a false A=B=C assumption going on here. It goes like this. I dispute with the CRA and ask for validation from the CA/Creditor after the 30 day window as per the FDCPA. The CA/Creditor does not respond to my validation letter, but they verify the entry on my Equisux report. I squawk at the CRA saying "hey the creditor didnâ??t validate to me, how could they verify with you". This is based on a false premise. The premise being the CRA has to be held to the same standard for verification as validation to a consumer disputing a debt. I've heard some explanations, I am hoping for a spirited debate backed up with some sound logic and case law. I seen some posters here use this technique, but I can't remember if anyone got the CRAs to cave and remove entries based on this process.
Great Topic! From the LeFevre-Cass opinion letter at the FTC website: Link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm I think you could make a case that by not responding to your Validation Letter, but in turn responding to the CRA request for verification, they have violated the FDCPA. If they deny that they have provided verification to the CRA, then you have the CRA in a willful violation of the FCRA. Either way, somebody to sue in a slam dunk case.
Or in case the creditor sues you first you have a basis for your complaint and damages for your countersuit. Right???? Tuit
I would agree BUT...all this is predicated on the fact that we respond to the CAs first letter of contact within the 30 days. Look at this case linked to below. It addresses the issue of using the excuse "Well I never got the intial contact letter", as well as the issue of asking for validation beyond the 30 day deadline. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/new...acb6688256958006caed1?OpenDocument&ExpandView
Well, we all know they put derogatory entries on your credit report without ever contacting you with that first "this is an attempt to collect a debt" letter - and then you never get that 30 days at all.
Agreed. But if they can make any sort of a good case that they sent something.... Fortunately, so far I haven't had any one push back on this. Just as we are powerless when we don't know the law, they are powerless if they don't know about this particular little wonder.
The only reason I bringing this to light is not be a contrarian , but to make sure we base our decisions on sound principals of law not on procedural maneuvering. Most CAs don't want a fight for a minuscule chance they may actually collect the money from us. Face it, we are breed they don't like to run into. We are difficult, educated and most important litigious. Most of the debts we float are in the sub $10,000 range. It just isnâ??t worth it to hire an attorney in the defendants venue and then fight off a prickly and troublesome debtor. They want your average momo who knows nothing of their rights, allows themselves to be bullied and badgered. I work in the debt consolidation business and believe me we are not talking about lawyers and accountant types at these CAs. Most are semi-educated salespeople of the telemarketer ilk.
