Validation Question

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Hal, Aug 22, 2001.

  1. Hal

    Hal Well-Known Member

    I have been reading the FTC Opinion letters on this and I am sending a second validation with a reference to the opinion letter posted above that a computer printout does not constitute adequate validation. While readig the letters on the FTC website I came across this:

    "Section 809(b) requires that "the collector cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt . . . and a copy of such verification . . . is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." In situations contemplated by Section 809(b), the Act imposes the obligation to furnish verification before the collector resumes collection efforts."

    I think I may have them in a violation just based on the fact that in their initial response, which did not validate the debt, they included this statement:

    "Please contact me so we can attempt to resolve this debt."....

    Mr. X, Phone 123-456-7890
    Debt Collector
     
  2. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Section 809 (b)... Ain't she a beauty? I could just look at that all day and smile. >[:eek:)

    Tom
     
  3. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    Breeze,
    I was only confused by his use of verification instead of validation in a funny ha ha kind of way. I was pointing out an obvious mistake that the FTC always seem to make in their legislation or media propaganda for that matter. You are right, there is nothing really confusing if you look past it. I think that I just get a little annoyed with their constant wording errors. You have heard me state many times how they mislead the public on what is law and what is not. I am just being a picky twit, I guess.

    Do you still love me?
     
  4. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Of course I still love you!

    I would never hold it against you that I completely missed the point of your post. But please don't let it happen again. ;)

    FTC leaves much to be desired on all fronts.

    breeze
     
  5. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member


    Hal,

    Whatever happened with this? In claeaning up my wife's credit, along with my own, I sent out a Validation Letter, Of the infamous LizardKing variety. The response arrived today. Not even a cover letter, just a printout from the CA's file showing the alleged original debt and $23 in interest (which I don't think they can even charge, but I'm not sure, yet) with the Total circled. Anyway, pretty similar to the path you trod a month or so ago. How'd it go? Any Advice?

    Tom
     
  6. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Ba Dum Bump!
     
  7. Hal

    Hal Well-Known Member

    Actually it worked very well, and I did as LK described. I received a letter from them, that as the original creditor could not provide a copy of the application they were notifying the CRA's to delete the account and considered the debt satisfied.

    Thanks LK!
     
  8. chelechele

    chelechele Well-Known Member

    Good for you :) Gives me hope :)
     
  9. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Thanks LK and Hal! And thanks, BTW, for all the help you've given me indirectly just by posting your experiences.

    I was already headed in that direction,as it seemed like the logical next step. It sure is nice to hear that what makes sense to me has actually worked for others, though.

    One unexpected wrinkle here. Though the CA gave me a totally inadequate reply, we just received a copy of my wife's TU report, and the Collection listing for this account has been deleted. So, do I leave well enough alone (unless, of course, they make another move to collect), or do I proceed as planned? At this point, they are not aggressively trying to collect. It's only $60. I want to get rid of the tradeline worse than they want $60.

    And, BTW, infamous can be good, right? (Think Robin Hood!)
     
  10. chelechele

    chelechele Well-Known Member

    I would be happy to see it gone....I personally would wipe my brow and keep checking for it to come back....myself, I wouldn't wake the sleeping neg trade lines.
     
  11. chelechele

    chelechele Well-Known Member

    BUT I'm sure someone will know better that I... :)
     
  12. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Hal and everyone:

    Let me set this matter of validation straight for the record once and for all time.

    Here is exactly what is required in the way of validation. Nothing less is acceptable nor upholdable in a court of law.

    1. The amount of the debt;
    2. The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
    3. A statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after the receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
    4. A statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verificaton or the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
    5. A statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

    That is what is required of a debt collector demanding payment.
    There is a whole lot more than that which is additionally demanded of a debt collector, be he a collection agent or an attorney, but that is the bare bones basics.
    The rest of it is far too extensive to go into here in this forum.

    Is it any wonder then that someone who has the experience and the knowledge of the law can do more in the way of beating the debt collector first and the credit bureau secondly than someone who is simply sending out round after round after round of letters trying to make credit bureaus believe that a lie is the truth and a lie is the truth?

    Is it any wonder then that with so many laws that a debt collector must strictly adhere to that someone knowledgeable about what is required might be able to catch them in some violation or violations of the law and force them to not only pay the bill but remove it from all records public and private in lieu of possibly having to explain why the failed to obey the law to a judge and jury?

    How many of you would like to be in the shoes of a debt collector or collection attorney attempting to explain to a judge and jury why they failed to obey the law and ended up abusing the civil rights of the debtor?

    I have yet to find one that had the termerity to try to stand up in court and make those explanations, and I doubt that I ever will.
     
  13. chelechele

    chelechele Well-Known Member

    See...told ya LOL :)
     
  14. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Which still leaves me with the question that I think I know the answer to: Is it better to let this sleeping dog lie? At the moment, it is causing me no harm, since it has dropped off of my TU. But it's still out there, waiting...
     
  15. chelechele

    chelechele Well-Known Member

    Leave it, leave it...or well, I don't know.... I'll just shut up LOL
     
  16. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    If it's not on any of your credit reports and it's not out there trying to bite you, then I would do as previously suggested, let sleeping dogs lie.

    If they wake up and try to bite you, then bite them back, only harder
     
  17. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Thank you both!
     
  18. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    Never push the validation/verification issue if you if it is not on your reports and you actually OWE the debt. If the debt is not legitimate, by all means I would push the issue as far as you wanted to, but it would not be necessary. Of course, this may keep them from selling a debt to another collector in the future if it is not legitimate. This could save you the trouble of getting it off your reports in the future when some bottom feeder buys it. If you actually owe the money, count your blessings and move on......
     
  19. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Yeah, my feeling is I got a little bit lucky on this one, so why tempt fate?
     

Share This Page