Validation Letter Question

You are wrong. There is no time limit on how long they can take to respond to a validation letter. The only legal requirement is that they stop "collection activity" until they provide the required information. You can still be sued, though, even without any response to a validation request.

 

no i disagree, the agency has a reasonable amount of time and a year to validate is definitely unreasonable and I spoke with the operations manager of a CA and she told me industry standard is usually 30 days. I would give them about a month, two months maximum. If they can't come up with anything in two months they will most likely leave you alone and move on to the next victim.

For me the validation letters have worked wonders. The CA just seem to disappear when you send them the letter.

Cypri

 

There is a world of difference between whether validation letters are useful in that a CA might decide not to bother and whether you actually are in a better legal position vis-a-vis the debt if the CA fails to respond. What law (please give us a specific statute, if possible) do you think requires a CA to respond in a "reasonable time"? What law do you think would prohibit a CA from attepting to collect a debt if they provided the validation information after a year?

 

If you read the FDCPA you can interpet it from many different points of view. However, as the statute REQUIRES a creditor to obtain validation of the debt, it certainly has the intent that it be done in a reasonable time. A year is not reasonable and I have no doubt any Court would interpet this as unreasonable.

 

One additional point. Keep in mind that States can either mirror the FDCPA directly or pass more stringent statutes. You may want to check to see what your state does.

Just as an Example on this subject:

Texas:

"Specifically, the statutes require debt collectors to provide written response to disputes by consumers within 30 days of receipt of written notice, and make corrections to inaccuracies within 5 business days, prohibits conducts which constitute threats or coercion, harassment, unfair or unconscionable means, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representations, deceptive use of credit bureau name, and use of independent collectors"

 

The FDCPA does not "REQUIRE" a collection agency (note: generally, it does not apply at all to original creditors) to obtain validation, it PROHIBITS collection activity IF validation was requested by the consumer within 30 days of the initial contact UNLESS validation has been obtained. That is an enormous (and important) difference.

Yoru point on state laws, though, is a good one. It is certainly possible that state laws provide a time limit on validation -- what is your source for the Texas information, I'd like to take a look at those statutes.

 

Never mind, I found the Texas statute myself -- very interesting!

"392.202. Correction of Third-Party Debt Collector's or Credit Bureau's Files

(a) An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item in a third-party debt collector's or credit bureau's file on the individual may notify in writing the third-party debt collector or credit bureau of the inaccuracy. The third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall provide forms for the notice and, when requested, assist an individual in preparing the notice.
(b) Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall send a written statement to the individual:

(1) denying the inaccuracy;
(2) admitting the inaccuracy; or
(3) stating that the third-party debt collector or credit bureau has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy.
(c) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau admits that the item is inaccurate, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall:
(1) not later than the fifth business day after the date of the admission, correct the item in the relevant file; and
(2) immediately on correction of the item send to each person who has previously received a report from the third-party debt collector or credit bureau containing the inaccurate information notice of the inaccuracy and a copy of an accurate report.
(d) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau states that there has not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall immediately:
(1) change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual;
(2) send to each person who previously received the report containing the information a notice that is equivalent to a notice under Subsection (c) and a copy of the changed report; and
(3) cease collection efforts if the item involves a debt.

(e) On completion by the third-party debt collector or credit bureau of the investigation, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall inform the individual of the determination of whether the item is accurate or inaccurate. If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau determines that the information was accurate, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau may again report that information and resume collection efforts."

So in Texas, at least, you can get a CA report to a CRA reversed if they don't respond w/in 30 days. Note that pursuant to subsection (e), however, that there is STILL no time limit, even in Texas, after which they can not resume reporting and collection activity after determining the accuracy of the information.

 

Sure there is a limit. A debt that is 7 years old FROM THE DATE OF LAST ACTIVITY (and after the new FDCPA admendment enactment) cannot not be reported or collected (or reaged).
This is not including debts like BKs and student loans.
Accounts prior to the above mentioned enactment could be a problem though.

 

Reported . . . certainly, that's the FCRA. However, the FDCPA says nothing about attempting to collect on such a debt. Granted, attempts to collect an out of SOL debt are easily foiled, but there is no federal statute that I am aware of prohibiting collection activity on a 7 year old plus debt.

If you have othger information, please cite the statute you're relying on, I'd like to take a look at it.

 

Laws are categorized in four ways:

1 You have the Constitution, which is the foundation for all the U.S. Laws.

2. You have federal then state statutes

3. Then there are case decisions that interpret the law the statutes or goverment agency opinions

4. Then there are rules.

Now your point is well-taken however, on the other side of the coin, literal statutory interpretation alone is not enough to formulate a legal opinion on an issue. Although the statute is silent as to how long a CA can have to validate, there is nothing in the statute that prohibits a court from implying or inferring that it must be done in a reasonable amount of time.

If one were to press the collection agency on this matter in a lawsuit lets say for defamation, which is a tort, the reasonable person standard would be used and frankly I would like my odds better with the reasonable person standard as to whether the CA waived their rights or are just plainly ignoring the law.


I cannot agree with your strict constructionist reasoning that just because the statute does not expressly set a time limit, that CA can take as long as they please to validate, to me that is illogical and like I said before I was told it is industry standard to validate within 30 days and really what CA collection is going to waste a year of their resources trying to validate a debt unless perhaps there are special circumstances.

They are in the business to collect debts, and based on my experience with using the validation letters and what I have heard from others on this board, CA could care less about validation and will just move on to someone who does not know there rights.

As Hal indicated in Texas, the state statute expresses a set time limit, federal statutes can serve as a guideline and where it lacks teeth a state statute may solidfy its meaning.


However, since Congress has failed to provide us with more expressed terms for the validation process , I am sure the debate will continue......


Cypri

 

LK Quote: "However, if you do, they get a computer generated printout of a bill and send that to you. Guess what, that is not validation/verification. I am a database consultant. With databases, garbage in = garbage out. I would only accept a copy of a signed contract with my signature on it as proof of a valid debt."

Agreed, and here is an FTC Opinion letter which addresses that issue:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

And, should they ask you to "pay" for copies of records, here is another FTC opinion on that (see #2):

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/krisor2.htm

 

I agree, let's talk reality.

Guess what, this is simply wrong. If push comes to shove and you take this into court, the court will tell you that a computer printout satisfies the validation requirement.

Or, more accurately, you can go after them for $1,000 per reasonably-connected series of transactions involving the same agency, no matter how many seperate violations of the FDCPA you are able to prove, plus your actual damages, if any, plus attorneys fees.

Of course, this only works if you get sued by the same collection agency. If they turn it back to the original creditor who then places it with another attorney for suit, or if the debt is sold to someone else that sues you, then you have no counterclaim whatsoever.

The reality is that if you sue without having a firm legal position you are gambling that they will not want to bother with you. It will work sometimes, as it apparently has for LK. But don't delude yourself that you have "rights" that you don't actually have.

 

Guess what, this is simply wrong. If push comes to shove and you take this into court, the court will tell you that a computer printout satisfies the validation requirement.
__________________________________________________


If there is case of identify fraud and an agency or creditor cannot substantiate that this account belongs to you, I don't think waving a computer print in court will be considered validation proof that someone owes that debt.

Laws are not made by statutes alone, that is reality!

Cypri

 

LK,
You mentioned that after the CA receives the letter for validation, they should cease collection activities. Does this include their listing on credit reports? I have a validation that's pending and their listing says, "Consumer disputing under the Fair Credit Billing Act." It seems to me like this shouldn't even be on my reports because it's a derog, thus, can be construed as "collection activity". Do you agree? If so, what's would you do if you were in this situation? BTW, it's been almost three months since they received my validation letter.

 

Sorry, dude (and Cyprigirl), but you are just wrong about this. I've posted actual caselaw before -- here's a link to it:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=59662

I work in a court. Specific evidentiary rules adress the admissibility of business records like computer printouts. It might not be conclusive, and it might be overcome with other evidence (such as evidence of fraud or identity theft), but a computer printout business record would be enough for a fact-finder in a court to find that you owed a debt, and it CERTAINLY would be enought to qualify as FDCPA validation.

SofaKing's FTC link is not to the contrary -- if you read it closely that letter was about a CA using ITS OWN records as "validation" -- not computerized records from the original creditor.

Sorry, but this is legally baseless, and unless there was some kind of joint ownership between the CAs I simply do not believe you. Would you be willing to e-mail the court documents? You can go ahead and redact your identifying info, I'd just like to see the court, date, and what was said.

 

Although the caselaw you provided is well-taken it still does prove anything , are these decisions in the minority view or majority view. Just because one circuit finds computer printouts to be sufficient another may not.

I do believe your earlier point was that a CA can take as long as they want to valdiate, and the case that you cited I believe their version of validation was done the next day.

It still does not address the issue of identity fraud, a computer printout will not be sufficient.

Again literal interpretation of a statute is enough to form a legal opinion, there may have been a host of other factors involved in the cases you cited.

As far as I am concerned, if a collection agency cannot produce substantial evidence that this account belongs to me, they have not validated, a court may disagree with me but I like my chances better if CA cannot produce competent evidence that this debt belongs to me. If the creditor cannot produce anything either i think that would further solidfy my argument.

Cypri

 

Did the judge grant YOU summary judgment on the contract claim? If not, then even your own case proves my point. Just because you were able to raise an issue of fact does not mean that you had a winning case. It just means you had enough to go to a fact-finder. I assure you that it was not their "lack" of contract thet got it past the SJ stage, it was admissible evidence (your own testimony, probably) from which a jury could conclude either that there was no contract or that their evidence of a contract was not reliable.

Um hmm. Whether I believe you or not may be irrelevant to you, but I have explained every one of my positions with detailed explanations and citations to real statutes and real cases. You have offered nothing to support your statements. Thus, they are simply not something someone in trouble could or should rely on. If push comes to shove and someone finds themselves in court or talking to a CA's attorney, they need to have something stronger than "I heard from this guy 'Lizardking' on the Interner that 'when someone buys a debt, they purchased all aspects of that debt.'" Why are you afraid to tell people where to finds the court documents on your cases? They are a matter of public record, after all.