validation help??

River, what on earth brought that on? I don't think Anthony and Kristi are sabotaging anyone's efforts, or putting people down.

They have both worked in the collections side of things and give us information based on that experience. Sure they put the website addresses in their signature. I have no problem with that. I don' think they have any ulterior motives, and I don't understand why you think that.

Have you had some other experience with them, that I would not be familiar with?

I'm sure sometimes I post insurance information that people would rather not hear, but I know things that most people do not know.

I have found both Kristi and Anthony to be very helpful and informative, I sure hope they don't leave the board.

No offense intended, I think you're cool, river.

breeze

 

Breeze,it seems that everytime one post anything on validation,Anthony is quick to say it is useless and Kristi is saying it can be done!!!! Here I am ,trying to rebuild with two different opinions from the "pro"'s and then one turns around ans says that she was wrong and misinterpected and the other not a bit of good when it comes to the consumer trying to get ahead.Maybe,I am having a bad day,I don't know which.I just want to know what I am doing is in my best interest and not make myself look foolish or ignorant to the creditor or collector.

 

Daddy-O:
Nope, thatâ??s not the deal. In-house collections are governed by different (state) standards, such as Texas Fair Debt Collections Practices Act or Californiaâ??s CC §1788; not to mention other banking and lending laws. Now where in-house counsel could be held liable under FDCPA, is by misrepresenting his/her office or authority. Iâ??ll share a short story to exemplify my meaningâ?¦

About a year ago I handled a case where a large (carry-own financing paper) dental firm here in So Cal, allowed in-house counsel to send dun letters that looked as though they originated from an outside law office (big no, no). In this instance the (original) creditor could have been held for a hit under FDCPA, based on precedent. Even though they are original creditor, in-house counsel put them in a position of potential liability under FDCPA out of sheer negligence. Needless to say the lawyer who authorized the duns isnâ??t employed with them anymore. However, situations like this are not common.

As far as my being â??more schooledâ? in certain matters? LOL well Iâ??ve been in the asset recovery field for a good many years, even BEFORE I started my practice (Circa 1994). So Iâ??m not so much more â??schoolâ? in credit matters than yourself (albeit I am well trained), as much as blessed with practical (hands-on) knowledge. Years of doing the bump and grind collecting low-grade paper (weâ??re talking true â??credit criminalsâ?), plus working with the good stuff too, gives me a major edge. Hay tap into that whenever you need to, thatâ??s why Iâ??m here.

That notwithstanding, if I ever jump your case too much please let me know? It wonâ??t be that Iâ??m aiming to be condescending or mean spirited, but because I can see when a consumer is shooting themselves in the foot â?? potentially or otherwise â?? from a creditor perspective. So itâ??s out of genuine concern that I may disagree with you occasionally, absolutely not as a superiority trip. [;-)

 

River:
I think youâ??re having a bad day (hay we all get those), because youâ??ve clearly misunderstood what the real deal is... Hay no harm in that, just get over it! [;-)

PS: Thanks Breeze for interjecting some balance.

 

I think Kristi just answered off the top of her head (we all do that sometimes). Anthony picked up on what she missed. Well, that's what's good about the board - all the bases get covered.

It's real easy to oversimplify this stuff, in our efforts to solve our immediate problems, I think. It isn't simple. These are complex laws and there are a lot of variables in each unique situation, making the application of the law to each situation complicated indeed.

Someone posts two or three facts, and someone else says "send this letter" without getting the rest of the information. Then someone like Anthony jumps in and says "no, that's not right". Then one of us quotes one part of the law, and Kristi quotes another, and so on an so on. What works for one person in their situation may not work for another person's situation. It just isn't that simple. It would be nice if it was.

Hang in there. It's a process.

breeze
"the truth is out there....."

 

Well said Breeze. THanks!!

 

Breeze,
you are so right. Sometimes I look at the posts too quickly and I dont really think it through. I shoot out some blanket advice that I wouldnt have if I would have taken a little bit more time to think it through. Anyway, I am going to look at things with a little more attention to detail in the future. I would hate to mess up someones chances...

 

River,
Dont be bummed. I think that all of what is offered on this board can be looked at objectively and help each of us reach our individual credit goals. The controversy can be a little hard to read through at times and it can be a little frustrating. I am not trying to sell anyone anything and if you feel that you need some non biased advice you are more than welcome to email me with any concerns. I am obviousily not a credit guru, but once I think these things through I am usually very successful. I have purged over 20 items from my reports in the past 18 months alone. Many were collections,chargeoffs, late pays and even judgements... This stuff posted here does work in the right situations and I only post ideas that have worked for myself. Sometimes my ideas are based totally on the principle of posturing. Anthony, will many times point out the fact that it is nothing but bluff. But remember, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Many times Anthony is just pointing out the inherent flaws of these tactics. But dont confuse yourself too much. Posturing works for many reasons and the Lizard King is also a prime example of such posturing in full effect. These creditors and collectors are just normal human beings like you and I (well I am definately not normal but that is another story lol). Anyway, most of time these time limits that I throw out to the creditors are nothing but hot air, but when threatened with legal action many times they will fold. After all, many times it is just not worth the chances of losing or wasting the companies money on one guy who is hooting and hollering for them to take something off his credit report, so many times they fold for that simple reason... I give them standards to follow, time limits and guidelines that may not be Federal Law, but sure might be warranted by a judge as a reasonable amount of time to reply..It works for me, but that doesnt make it effective advice for everyone. It can be risky, but in my credit ruined state I didnt have much to lose.... Good luck with your journey...

 

I have neither heard Anthony nor Kristi promote their businesses directly. Only possibly indirectly through their valuable advice. More importantly, I have gained some valuable insight from their opinions and ideas as well as their indepth understanding of some of the finer points of the things effect me and my credit (directly or indirectly). I don't think asking someone to leave for posting their opinion is beneficial to anyone.

-Dave

 

Dave,
You are right, they never push their products here. I think that they are just trying to offer good advice and content to drive the fish to their sites. I do think that they are both a great resource here on this board..By the way Kristi has a great website and it is very informative and I am quite certain that Anthonys' will be quite useful also..Good content is what it is all about Content = SALES. I am trying to get them to offer the complete guide to SOL and judgements on their sites, it will save me a whole lot of work on my part lol

 

He kinda took it back, Dave.

So now, maybe we can get back to business, huh?

Along the same lines as some of the other posts, I have a friend emailing me about a collection that popped up out of nowhere.

Generally speaking, she doesn't have any credit problems, just keeping stuff straight, like we all have to do.

A CA entry just showed up on her credit report. Turns out it was for a bill from a utility company she last did business with about 3 years ago. She called the CA, and they are collecting for the utility company, they haven't purchased the debt. She says she doesn't owe any money on that account.

In the meantime (since she had that account) she has married and changed her name, and moved to another part of the state (PA). She says she paid the final bill and closed that account out. The CA has her old name and old address, correct ssn, and had no trouble finding her (she wasn't hiding). SO the CA told her to contact the utility company and talk to them about it. She asked for proof that it is really her bill.

The utility company said they don't have to prove anything, that the auditors found that account with an outstanding bill. She said she had proof that she paid the final bill and had the service terminated. They said they don't care what she has, the auditors say she owes that money. She said no she didn't but she would pay the damn bill if they'd take the entry off her credit report. They said "no way."

I have never heard of anything like this - I mean she doesn't have any bad debts, is not involved in credit repair, pays her bills, runs a business... what on earth is she supposed to do with these people?

I told her to send a "validation" letter to the CA anyway, to start a paper trail. She has already disputed it twice on all 3 bureaus (yep all 3 have it) and it comes back verified.

I am not sure what to tell her, except to go through all the motions, to document her efforts to get this straightened out, and then file a complaint with the PA regulatory authority.

Any thoughts?

breeze

 

SuzyQ (zcraws33):
No thatâ??s not what I was driving at, but no worries, Iâ??ll explain the differences.

First and foremost there are two (2) distinct concepts to consider, original creditors and third-party collection agents. The latter are expressly governed by Federal statute via the, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Original creditors primarily follow state specific (collection oriented) guidelines, many of which mirror FDCPA (again, the Federal law covering third-party collectors).

If a particular state law specifies that an original creditor MUST validate a debt, similar to FDCPA relating to third-party agents. Then the consumer has a right to demand validation accordingly, but if no particular state law requires an original creditor to validate; then the consumer cannot â??demandâ? such under law. But a verification could be â??requestedâ? and I donâ??t know of any reason an original creditor would deny a BASIC validation of the debt legitimacy. Correspondingly, third-party agents havenâ??t a choice in the matter (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm); they must validate regardless.

Some state laws, such as Californiaâ??s Civil Code §1788, for example. Do not expressly provide for verification of debts, but DO prohibit false representations made in connection with an alleged debt; all states have this coverage. So a creditor couldnâ??t easily falsify a collection effort, even if they wanted to (take my word for it, they donâ??t).

Remember, there are two (2) separate concepts here: original creditor and collection agent. One MUST validate under express code of Federal law (collection agents), while the other (original creditor) may not be so bound under state law. In context with this thread, I meant that (unless otherwise expressly provided by state law) an â??original creditorâ? isnâ??t obligated to validate the debt.

I know, it gets confusing sometimes, but hang in there..! [;-)

 

Anthony,
Good Point, but I do have one more question. What if your state is OHIO and in house collector violates the law. ? I didnt even know that Ohio had seperate collection laws for inhouse. Could you tell me where to find them? I have a friend who had an inhouse collector call his brother n laws house and divulge every detail of this debt to his brother n law. Now this would be a clear violation of FDCPA, what laws are you saying that creditors and inhouse collectors do have to follow in Ohio or in general., I cant find anything....

 

Daddy-O:
Well Ohio State may not have any specific provisions regarding original creditors (like Texas or California), which would include (original creditor) in-house collectors. Nonetheless, according to my material from the National Association of Credit Management, Ohio has the following related laws. They appear to govern original creditors: Small Loan Act; Consumer Installment Loan Act; Revolving Sales Credit and Consumer Protection Acts.

I suggest you take a surf to FindLaw.com and start your research there. In the alternative or as a supplement to FindLaw.com, try your local county law library.

 

Breeze:
You did the right thing by advising her to demand validation because while the original creditor may not be required to validate, the collection agent certainly is (under FDCPA)! She can validate at any time, even after the 30-day validation notice period. But hereâ??s the thingâ?¦

Should the collection agent come back with anything remotely resembling validation material, per FDCPA. Have her send a C&D demand accompanied by proof of payment, perhaps with a proviso that sheâ??ll engage litigation if they persist (and/or do not remove the item from credit reporting). She may have to litigate, however, but if an audit trail can be established showing all payments made; sheâ??ll prevail, no doubt.

 

Someone posts two or three facts, and someone else says "send this letter" without getting the rest of the information. Then someone like Anthony jumps in and says "no, that's not right". Then one of us quotes one part of the law, and Kristi quotes another, and so on an so on. What works for one person in their situation may not work for another person's situation. It just isn't that simple. It would be nice if it was.
Hang in there. It's a process.
*******************
Just to amplify a bit on what you posted, breeae.

I like to approach the total picture of credit repair from the standpoint of dividing the start of the picture into 9
different categories or types of debt and creditors. Each is either best approaced or ends up in different possible scenarios.

A small example of this is that one can hardly approach a CRAs reporting on a paid off or settled account in the same way that one would approach a debt that has gone into default long ago or a student loan. And one cannot approach a CRA in exactly the same manner and with the same exact validation letter that one would approach a creditor with.

So it becomes a matter of flowcharting in exactly the way a person would approach the task of sitting down and writing a program in Cobol or Visual Basic or CGI or Perl or any one of hundreds of programming languages, a few of which I know and work with frequently. Then, keeping that in mind, what is likely to end up happening when someone uses a validation letter posted here or anywhere else???

A new person reads the letter, no matter if I posted it or Lizard King or anyone else, thinks it great and fires it off at all his creditors and the credit bureaus too???
Then he comes back crying that Lizard or Bill Bauer or whoever posted it must be some kind of nut for thinking their validation letter was so great. Didn't work for me, did it? Therefore nobody should listen to that nut. He will only mess you up with his silly validation letters. The clod is dangerous and his ideas will get you killed. So the next newbie believes the first and the war is on.

Truth is that it really don't make all that much difference whose validation letter one uses. Mine is better than someone else's may or may not be true, but it's not even all that important. The validation letter, good-bad-indifferent is just the first step in the "programming" process, and if you don't even know that a 2nd step or maybe even a 4th or 5 step exists, the best opinion or the best validation letter in the world will get you "killed" sooner or later.

And then Anthony has just brought up a second very valid point. He "sees" or "looks at" things from a creditor's point of view and while his excellent views from that perspective may slant what he has to say, but from the point of view of another professional having a different point of view, Anthony may appear to be very wrong in what he says.
And from their individual perspectives, each may be totally and completely correct. And I'm not using Anthony's name here to flame or put him down. I could have used any other person just as easily. Even Federal judges often have completely different points of view on the same subject. Look at the MicroSoft Bill Gates thing where one Federal Judge said the company had to be split up and just now a 2nd Federal judge just struck down the ruling of the first.
What if Federal judges got off into flame wars over their disagreements. (LOL)

Then many people get upset with me because I don't want to post my validation letter. They have often said that all I want to do is to use this forum to make money.

Be that as it may, I think that I also have a responsibility to all in that if I post something claiming either for cash or for free that it will cure their heartache of the moment
then it is also my responsibility to be certain that the use they put it to will actually benefit them rather than harm them. Free advice can and often does turn out to be extremely expensive if improperly applied. I'm currently working on doing a Q&A type thing on my website that would lead people down the right path to the correct solution they need to solve their particular problem. It isn't going to be easy to do and do right.

 

I'm confused... Is this thread talking about me, (Kristi Feathers @ Carreon) or Kristy Welsh (@ Credit Info Center.)

Because, when I am reading it, it appears as though everyone is talking about Kristy and Anthony but all posts are being spelled Kristi with an i. Jut curious and lost.....

 

So are those doing the spelling. (LOL)