Guys I am new at this, so please forgive a stupid question! After I have spent all morning pulling together a validation letter that I think is great, it dawns on me that I may be way off target here. I recall reading on this board that Validation letters were for Collection Agencies only, not for original creditors. Is it true that an original creditor does not have to abide by the request for validation of a debt? If this is true, what do I send to the original creditor? The letter I have prepared asks for proof of the debt i.e. a signed document by me, a complete accounting of the debt from inception, a complete accounting after charge off, and documentation of sale or assignment. Is this right, or am I barking up the wrong tree? All of these debts were included in a CH13 plan several years ago.
No it is not a stupid question. In fact it is rather confusing. Of course you are entitled to validation of the debt that they claim you owe, only original creditors are not bound by the FDCPA because they are not "collectors of debt", they are the original source of the credit. As such they ARE bound under the FCRA and some folks here have worded their OC validation letters to reflect those subtle but but distinct differences. Here is a one drawn up by lizardking, but the discussion has gone on from this letter to include certain sections of the FCRA that provide for the validation process with the OC. You should do a search for: "original creditor" AND validation "original creditor" AND FCRA AND violation or other similar search parameters. Please post a copy of your letter up here with the names and dates masked out so we can see what you have so far, make comments and suggestions. I would like to get a copy of the OC validation letter up in the sample section if we can decide on a couple worthy candidates. It would be nice to see some different examples. Good Luck. -Peace, Dave
Lisa, I'm not familiar with how CH 13 or charge-offs work, but I do know that there are obvious scenarios when you would want to send validation to the original creditor, eventhough they are usually used with collection agencies. For instance, fraud would be a prime example. If someone fraudently opens an account in someone's name, I can't see any other way that you could get the proof that it was someone else that opened the account. I personally have not sent validation to an original creditor, only to collection agencies. I am sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Hope my reply keeps you at the top of the list until someone knowledgeable answers your post.
Okay Dave, be as critical as you can..... Here is a copy of the letter: April 12, 2002 Bankcard Address City, State Zip Re: Errors in the credit report of LisaMc, SS# xxx-xx-xxxx, Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx To Whom It May Concern: Please consider this letter a formal complaint regarding select information contained in my credit report. I am advising you that the information you are reporting is inaccurate, incomplete, and totally without merit. I can understand how easily mistakes happen; however, I cannot understand how these mistakes can continue so long after they have been brought to your attention! I have called your customer service department on numerous occasions attempting to correct these problems. Just when I think the matter is resolved, you have the audacity to report the erroneous information again! You have consistently failed to maintain the reasonable procedures necessary to assure the validity of the data you issue. I have more experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act than I ever wanted. Based on my past experiences, I find your procedures and subsequent reporting to be significantly below acceptable levels. Once again I am asking for your help to resolve this ongoing comedy of errors. Please provide the following documentation to me at the address listed below 1. A copy of any legal instrument, bearing my signature, which supports your basis for the continued reporting of this alleged debt. 2. An itemized accounting of all debits and credits on the alleged account for the entire history of the account. 3. The assignment or purchase agreement for the alleged debt between your company and any other entity. ****The only reason why I included this is because I have accounts reporting 3 times under different bank names.**** 4. An itemized accounting of the alleged debt after it was supposedly written off including all debits and credits. 5. Complete documentation of the amount that was written off for federal tax purposes. Just to restate my request in more general terms: I am not requesting a "verification" of my mailing address. The fact you have my name and mailing address has been well established through numerous disputes already. I am requesting a "validation" of this alleged debt; that is, competent legal evidentiary matter that I have some contractual obligation to pay you the reported amount. Under federal law, and as enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, you have 30 days to complete your investigation and supply the documentation as requested. Failure to do so will constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. 45(a). Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, LisaMc Address Texas
I LOVE the letter it is great! The ONLY things I would do (were I you, this is a very nit-picky comment) would be to remove the sections quoted above...they are somewhat unnecessary and may detract from your intent. I realize your frustration but I like to keep the frustration out of my letters. AGAIN though I am being nit-picky, I fully understand your desire to let them know these items. I would replace the "below acceptable levels" section, to read something like "your actions in this matter are in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act." (your meaning the OC, not you. One last thing I read from LKH in another thread that I would include. Something to the effect of: -----from LKH-------- Send the letter with a separate note that this is the last time you will request the info that you have a legal right to. Let them know, if they don't send you anything within 15 days, then you will file suit for them violating the FCRA by reporting erroneous info they cannot prove. ----------------------- I also would like some comments from others on what we should or should not include with these OC letters as far as response time (15 days, 30 days, or leave the time period out completely). Bottom line Lisa, I think this is a strong, clear, and well written letter simply demanding what you are entitled to. Nice work! -Peace, Dave
Dave, I really appreciate your time and your comments. I was iffy on the item that you suggested deleting. I agree, it probably should come out. My biggest concern overall was this: Because I am sending this letter to an original creditor, what am I legally entitled to as far as forcing them to produce documents, timeline, etc. It seems pretty clear for a CA, but for OC it seems a bit gray to me.
I think that is exactly the confusing part...because it is not spelled out. What is spelled out is your right to proof that this debt belongs to you, and that would include all of the items you are requesting (in my opinion)...it may not be exactly what you are requesting (in the OC's opinion)...but I think after reading and re-reading Lizardking's letter, my understanding is that this is not geared to a "legal demand" for specific information, but more to start the process rolling to collect evidence that you have given the OC every attempt to prove that this debt is yours before a law suit is filed (if need be). I am sure others will have comments but that is my understanding. I would wait for some folks to offer their comments and suggestions and send the letter Saturday or Monday AM via CRRR (or Tuesday to avoid the tax lines at the post office Good Luck Lisa! -Peace, Dave
I personally like the letter and have saved it to my "file" of letters and creditnet "stuff". I don't know about the validation with an OC...but I did send a modified validation letter to CCB and 2 others and NONE responded, but they all quickly deleted the accounts. To this day, no correspondence from them. The letter sounds good to me
I've been adding this to all my letters, yours is great I saved it too: Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information (Nelson v. Chase, 2002). Sassy
Well, Sassy, that is a bit of info that I am going to add to my file of good credit stuff. Thanks for the info. As far as whether this will work on an OC or not is still up in the air. I really feel that I have reason to try it. I have heard over and over that it is the reporting of the BK itself that will kill you. All of the accounts included in the BK are unrated and of no threat. I just don't believe that logic holds up. I worked on my husbands issues before I started mine. His was smaller and more straightforward. I have now had all but 3 negative entries removed from all of his reports combined. When I started there were almost 60 negative entries combined. His scores went steadily up with each account deletion, and they were all reporting "included in CH13." His scores started at a low of 425 for TU and now 9 months later his high is Equifax at 695 with the others within 20 points of that. To me, that says it all. The BK's are all still reporting. I think a lot of good can come from deleting the shear numbers of negative account listings. Hopefully, like you, I will not hear from any of them and I will just see accounts start dropping off. That would be a home run to me. If they do want to go the distance with this, I may be in trouble. I don't quite know how I am going to justify deletion if these accounts were included in the BK filing. That is indisputable. Even if they would report correctly, it would help. Deletion would be so much better though! Thanks again for all your help, guys. There sure is alot of good information on this board and lots of good people willing to share it. Lisa
Lisa, Here's a thread from bayhouse you may find interesting: http://www.bayhouse.com/credit-forum/showthread.php?threadid=358 Surely someone has challenged the inclusion of the judgement of BK along with the "included in BK" notations. The argument makes sense to me. Sassy
