validation help??

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by zcraws33, Jun 27, 2001.

  1. zcraws33

    zcraws33 Well-Known Member

    Hi all

    I wrote a letter to an original creditor. World financial network, Lane Bryant, asking them to validate a charged off account that they are reporting. I asked that they supply copies of the original documentation that may verify this account as belonging to me. I honestly do not remember having a lane bryant account. Anyway, they wrote me back stating that "once a customer applies for an account, the original application becomes the property of World Financial Network National Bank, and will only be released if subpoenaed by a court of law"
    Any advice on how to proceed, would be greatly appreciated.

  2. Hal

    Hal Well-Known Member

    Since they said they will not release the Original, I would write back making it clear that you are not asking for the Original, but a copy.
  3. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    Sounds like an attempt to stall. You need to send a second letter with an estopel statement. It should also state that their failure to satisfy this request within the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act will be construed as their absolute waiver of any and all claims against you, and their tacit agreement to compensate you for costs and attorney fees. Tell them that absent this proof you will have no choice but to consider this alleged debt nonexistent..Keep it simple and to the point. You can find validation letters using the search feature here for reference in writing your own letter. Good Luck!
  4. zcraws33

    zcraws33 Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the advice, I am composing a new letter today, reiterating "copy" and using the advice from Goddayo also.
    THank you all so much....

  5. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Daddy-o, you been hangin' out with lawyers again? LOL

  6. KristyW

    KristyW Well-Known Member

    If they can't prove the debt is yours in 30 days, they are in violation of the FDCPA. Godaddyo is correct.
  7. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    I (respectfully) disagree with Godaddyo and Kristy, because neither collection agent nor original creditor is required to respond to a validation request within a given time-frame. Neither would be in violation of FDCPA were they to take 1,000 days (or more) to validate.

    Additionally, since youâ??ve mentioned dealing with an â??originalâ? creditor FDCPA doesnâ??t automatically apply. Original creditors need not concern themselves with FDCPA because the law was intended to govern third-party collection agents, not original creditors. Yes there are rare occasions when an original creditor is held liable under the Act, but they are highly uncommon; yours appears not to be one of them.

    Whatâ??s more. No collection entity, whether original creditor or collection agent, is bound to provide you copies of anything ancillary to validation items. Demanding specific documents isnâ??t a right, either, and FNNB is well within itâ??s bounds to deny you even a copy of the credit application. So what to do?

    I would suggest simply calling the creditor and ask to speak with either a lead collector or supervisor. Ask them to send what is house policy to substantiate debts, but donâ??t demand as though they MUST comply or else (they donâ??t). Be polite and business-like, yet explain you donâ??t remember establishing the account. Iâ??m confident the creditor will send something that jogs your memory.

    Lastly. Forget the â??estoppel statementâ? as well, this is a hooey tactic; the use of which may only make you appear foolish in the creditorâ??s eyes. Failing to come off like a credit-maven when dealing with the creditor, will probably gain far more respect (minus the flawed legal threats). No one likes to be threatened needlessly, so make absolutely certain your on solid ground before/if you must get strong.
  8. river

    river Well-Known Member

    This is where I get confused!!!!!!!!!!!! With what poster is asking and what Anthony is saying. What good is a "validation letter",if it has no grounds to stand on. Kristi says different.Is it because one is a "consumer advocate" and the other is a "collector advocate"? Can someone answer,Please.In layman terms. thanks.
  9. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Some states carry similar/mirrored laws to FDCPA, and in those instances a validation letter is appropriate (but not always necessary). Iâ??m not suggesting by any means that zcraws33 forget about attempting to validate the debt, if she cannot legitimately remember the account. All Iâ??m saying is that a original creditor does not fall under FDCPA compliance, and it isnâ??t in oneâ??s interest to come off too strong without cause or merit.

    So what part of that is confusing to you? Also, whom do you think is a â??collectorâ? advocate? (Hay, if I come off advocating certain collection aspects so be it. My only purpose in those instances is to relate a different perspective, that is why one visits a board like this.)
  10. river

    river Well-Known Member

    Crdt Dfnse "quote":"What's more? No collection entity,wheather original creditor or collection agent,is bound to provide you copies of anything ancillary to validation items. Demanding...." So,what good is a validation letter? Does it work with "law firms" acting as collectors or does it show that the "consumer" is being mislead or just blowing smoke?
  11. river

    river Well-Known Member

    "I'm confident that the creditor will send something that jogs your memory" quote by: Crdt Dfnse" =collector advocate. JMHO Anthony. Playing "devils advocate" here.
  12. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Ah, I see where the confusion may lay (but correct me if mistaken?). Iâ??ll explainâ?¦

    Again some states, Texas and California for example, have laws similar to FDCPA only they pertain primarily to original creditors. On the other hand FDCPA is almost exclusively geared to govern third-party collection agents. Californiaâ??s Civil Code §1788, for example, requires that only certain information be verified. Anything beyond what a particular state (or FDCPA) may require to validate a debt, is ancillary (i.e., original credit application, loan contracts, etc.) to the issue of validation unless prescribed (required) by law.

    Simply because a consumer may demand certain (ancillary) items, and perhaps do so under the auspicious of â??estoppelsâ? or some other misapplications of law. Does not necessarily mean the creditor or collection agent is bound (required by law) to send the demanded items. They may, only because staffing doesnâ??t know better or seeks to cover good faith angles. But the creditor or agent is NOT REQUIRED to do so, nor can they be compelled to comply other than through order of the court.

    My particular distain from seeing consumers use what amounts to be idle threats. Is that sharp collectors (whether original creditor or agent) will view such chest pounding as hollow posturing, a bluff theyâ??ll not respect. A consumer is far better served gaining the â??respectâ? of a collector, rather than trying to bully their way to get what they â??thinkâ? theyâ??re entitled to.
  13. river

    river Well-Known Member

    Other than,"speaking to the original creditor", what other recourse do you have to get it corrected or removed? That's the whole idea or purpose here. Any suggestions on your end of the spectrum,Anthony? If YOU were the CONSUMER and I were the ORIGINAL CREDITOR,what would YOU do to have it removed,rather it be ligit or not ? There has to be another way than "just speaking to original creditor".
  14. KristyW

    KristyW Well-Known Member


    I have to agree with you that they may not be in violation. (Meaning I was wrong) I just checked and the act is for debt collectors only, not original creditors.
  15. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Hay youâ??re not completely in error, FDCPA can be used against an original creditor in rare cases. For instance when the original creditor fosters and promotes violation(s) of the Act, by insisting certain conduct be engaged by an agent under assignment. Correspondingly former Long Beach Bank (here in California) got slapped pretty good under FDCPA via threat of class action, for promoting deceptive collection tactics through a third-party agent (the bank wisely settled out of court).
  16. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    Foremost, Iâ??m not the one to ask about evading legitimate debts; I donâ??t believe in it, as such conduct is tantamount to theft. But Iâ??m not here to cast any moral dispersions, and why I donâ??t address board topics if it appears the poster is attempting to evade Scott-free.

    Nonetheless in reference to your question (out of context with zcraws33â??s original post), handling the matter depends on the situational background. Is the debt a deficiency or judgment? Is it a credit card balance? Secured or unsecured, purchased or under service? In SOL or stale? Has the creditor acted in good faith; is there questionable creditor conduct involved? These and other factors should be considered as part of a resolution equation (strategy), based on sound principles (established procedures and law). So there is no general â??one-size-fits-allâ? solution, as much as that would make many lives easier.

    For what itâ??s worth, since youâ??re probably wondering about my mind-set to a degree (based on your question). IMO it is always (almost without fail) in the consumerâ??s best interest to first seek amicable cooperation, as opposed to trying to shove something or another down a collectorâ??s throat. Iâ??m not suggesting a complete roll-over or Casper Milktoast attitude, but one of calm and confidence (confidence based on TRULY knowing oneâ??s opposition).

    Looking at issues from a collectorâ??s perspective is invaluable, a skill Iâ??ve come to realize few consumers want to learn (everybody seems to want the quick-fix). Those consumers that have learned this ability or hire one who has it, however, find far more sustained debt resolutions. Long-term stuff that goes far beyond â??credit repairâ? as a necessity of facilitating the acquisition of something. Further more, collectors donâ??t treat these kind of folks with anything other than respect; meaning, no games or BS the collector might otherwise dish-out.

    Yes, I know all this doesnâ??t specifically answer your question. Albeit without specifics of a given situation my answer is essentially as stated.
  17. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    You are absolutely ccrrect. I assumed that there was some type of collection efforts being made on the original creditors part. If they are making collection efforts then I would follow the advice that I had given due to the fact that they would be held responsible under the FDCPA. If they are only reporting negative info to the CRAs, that would only constiitute them acting accordingly as an original creditor. I would take Anthonys advice and call there collections dept., if you get no where with them I would ask to speak to someone in there legal dept. I did this with Federated Department stores and this worked for me. If they do not have a contract with your signature on it, I would advise them to remove the trade line from the credit reporting network. I would be polite, but I would be firm in my request for immediate removal. I would give them 30 days to take action. I would also tell them that failure to do so will result in immediate legal action. If you are certain that this account is not yours, I would call the Attorney Generals office in your state and the state that the creditor resides. This is also highly effective. They will be forced to remove it, minus proof..
  18. Crdt Dfnse

    Crdt Dfnse Well-Known Member

    You still donâ??t get it do you? An O-R-I-G-I-N-A-L C-R-E-D-I-T-O-R DOES NOT have to comply with Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), which pertains to third-party agents. Further more, asserting that a creditor perform under a consumer demand (such as within a certain time frame) doesnâ??t cut the mustard of statutory law. Period! Nothing in FDCPA or most state mirrors dictate that a creditor (or agent) MUST comply with a validation request within a certain time-frame, and to insist otherwise is barking without bite.

    Hay Iâ??m not knocking you my friend, because I realize results are all that matter to you; whereas youâ??ve made it clear (in prior posts) the end justify the means. So be it, that is what it is. [;-)
  19. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    I understand what you are saying. I have always been under the impression that "inhouse collections and attorneys who represent the creditor are liable under the FDCPA if they act as collectors. I am certain that attorneys that make collection efforts are liable under the FDCPA. You are saying that original creditors are not. Well, what if they are making collection attempts. You know. calling the debtors house asking for payment and sending demand letters for payment after the debt has been charged off or deemed uncollectable..? Maybe I am confused. By the way I realize that you are more schooled on this subject than most. I appreciate it when you throw a wrench in my tactics. I am not trying to invalidate your thoughts, I am only trying to learn from them. You are quite right when you say that I am results oriented, at the same time I am very thankful that you can point at the flaws and keep people from making themselves look silly and losing any leverage they may have had in the process. Thanks again!!
  20. river

    river Well-Known Member

    So,I gather that 'you' Anthony are not here for the consumers' benefit and Kristi had to eat her "words", in layman terms.So,tell me what "you" have to offer the consumer's in retrospect to rebuilding their credit? Other than to say "we" are wasting our time and to say the least,"yours". Anthony,you should and kristi should stick to what you know best and leave the board if you are here to promote your businesses. I realize that you both realize that "we" are very vunable to those that claim to be helping us rebuild our credit and in the broad spectrum are really here to discourage us and steer us to your services. Yes,you did beat around the bush,and you really do need to retire from board and spare those of us that are trying to get on the right tract. Same goes for Kristi.

Share This Page