validation or dispute?

You are going to need to do a WHOLE lot of reading before you start to do anything.

From your question, it seems that all of the accounts are 'fresh', so if the amounts are right (high enough) legal action could be possible.

Validation - This is what is referred to at the bottom of the letters from the collection agencies. Unless you notify us within 30 days that you dispute the validity, we have the right to assume that this debt is valid.

Verification - If an account is appearing on your credit report, this is the process that you request that the CRA verify with the data furnisher that what they are reporting is complete and accurate. UNFORTUNATELY, in most cases, all that is required is a quick glance at the account information on one system, and typing a yes, no, or update back to the CRA. This is changing slightly to give the consumer the right to expect that a more thorough investigation is completed, thanks to Johnson v. MBNA, but unless you ask for a more thorough investigation, chances are you won't be given a more thorough investigation.

Esteppel - This is a REALLY ADVANCED topic. Essentially it is basically mirroring the 30 day assumption back on the laps of the CA. Well, you said you knew that the debt was valid, you haven't provided proof thusfar, so I have the right to assume that the debt isn't valid. This is a 2 second synopsis of it. If you watch ABC's "The Practice" Esteppel is big on the series finale. (Partnership by Esteppel -- the new lawyer is arguing that because he generated more revenue than all of the partners of the firm, he became a partner in that firm.) Esteppel is a very generic arguement, there are a whole lot of different types of Esteppel; which is why you will want to read up a whole lot about it before thinking about using it.

You will probably want to do a whole lot of reading before doing ANYTHING... For one major reason, although the FDCPA is designed to be interpreted from the view of the unsophisticated consumer, you will want to understand every word of any letter which you send out. You will want to understand exactly what it is saying, and why it says it, and where it is based on in the law.

Especially since if these accounts are fresh enough, there is a real possibility that any misteps could result in being sued, and you will want to make sure you know enough about the law before that happens to be able to argue your case.

You'll want to search for BUTCH's What is Validation thread, its a long one, but even when it wanders, it contains a wealth of discussion on what validation is (or isn't -- since it isn't really defined, but in essence defined by ommission.)

 

ESTOPPEL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEBT COLLECTION/CREDIT REPORTING.

Estoppel, yes an "Advanced" legal theory, requires there be a "duty or responsibility" to act or reply etc etc.

In relation to debt collection/validation, THERE IS NO DUTY TO RESPOND/REPLY in MOST CASES.

IN FACT, the case cited in the "estoppel by silence" letter found ALL over the net, IS A PROPERTY LINE/EASMENT CASE AND HAS ABOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CREDIT!

Just another example of how someone somewhere got a hold of a partial quote or portion of a case and turned it into something else.

Be careful out there!

 

I won't agree 100% with hiding. Although they are not required to respond, since they are required to stop collection activities until they do respond, their inaction does speak volumes about the legitimacy, or lack thereof of the debt.

That said. I have never used an Esteppel letter; in fact, I've let some CA's go about trying to obtain the validation ad infinitum, as so long as they've stopped the collection activities while they do so.

I've had a CA take more than 6 months to obtain the validation, and then try to allow less than 10 days for me to review the verification that they provided, before they attempted to sue me for it, surprisingly the second they were notified that I intended to appear to defend myself, they sold the account to another company.

hiding, this goes to the issue of whether they truely believed that they had provided true validation; if they were certain that they had enough to prove the amount at the hearing, you can be certain that they would have proceeded.

(BTW: the amount that they were claiming in the verification was over $140.00 OVER what the OC itself was claiming on their last trade line update.)

Surprisingly I've *NEVER* heard from the company who purchased the account, the only way I knew that it was sold is that it appeared on one of my CR's with the new owner. There is a chance that the old owner provided them with the audit of their verification that I had last sent, but I still sent them a validation letter stating that I have never heard from them, and I was still invoking all of my rights under federal law. Almost a year later, and I still have never heard from them.

 

have you read the blue below?