I sent a request for validation to the collection arm of a bank that has a charged off deposit account on my credit report. I have never had an account with this bank but they continually veify it with the CRA's. After finding this message board I sent them CRRR the sample debt validation letter from this site to them. They responded with a letter saying it was due to overdrafts and that I need to check my statements to see the paticulars or to send them $5.00 to research it. I have never had an account with this bank in the first place so there is nothing to research. They obviously cannot validate this debt since it is 6 1/2 years old. My question is two fold, since they have failed to validate should I wait until the 30 days has passed to send them another CRRR second chance letter, it has only been 15 days since the first CRRR was sent and they responded. Should I skip this step and send the estoppel for the second letter instead of giving them another chance. Should I send the estoppel now or wait the 30 days. I ask the timeframe because when I send copies to the CRA don't I want to show I waited 30 days and they did not respond, if my letters are only 15 days apart they may think I did get a response and ignore me. My second question, it appears from the discussion the past few days that the collection arm of a bank is subject to the validation laws just like any collection agency, correct? The balance is very small and the 7 year statute is up in October of this year. The problem is we are getting a mortgage in July so I have to get it removed from the report or pay it before July. What suggestions does everyone have for the next step.
Should I wait and send the estoppel after the 30 days are up from the first letter or send it now? Should it go CRRR also?
they responded... they have up to thirty days, it was their choice to respond early. send the estoppel and send it crrr
Is this correct .? If they respond in less than 30 days does it void the rest of the 30 day period for them??
Even though they responded per se, they really didn't respond with the required validation within the 30 day period. The initial letter doesn't just give them 30 days to respond -- instead, specifically, it gives them 30 days to respond a certain way. For that reason, you should wait the entire 30 days so that the period expires. Essentially you allow them 30 days to respond in a certain way, and then you wait out the entire 30 days. Inadequate responses received during that period should be ignored since those basically ignore your lawful request. Technically the CA could still pull through and deliver the requested validation within the parameters of your initial 30 day request at the last moment, so you have to give them the full 30 days to respond as you promised you would. If you end up in court, the judge will see that you waited a reasonable period of time for the alleged creditor to prove the debt but, alas, they did not. (Of course, if the CA does in fact produce good validation -- the original signed contract, for example, along with notarized copies of monthly unpaid bills, etc. -- then they have at that point played by the rules within your rights and proven the debt. At that point, your next step isn't estoppel; rather, it's negotiation.) Bottom line: Send validation. Wait the 30 days (even if they respond inadequately). Then send the estoppel letter. Doc
Thanks Doc Thats what I was thinking I should do, but I wanted some advice from others. I also thought it may look funny to the CRA when I dispute it as not mine or saying they have failed to validate and I show copies of letters dated 2 weeks apart. I was suprised they responded that quickly. Since it was charged off 6 1/2 years ago I doubted they would be able to prove anything. It goes off automatically in October of this year but since I am buying a house I wanted to be able to show they are not mine and to give them letters showing I have given the collector every opportunity to prove it is mine just in case the CRA's refuse to remove it. I will still have letters I can provide showing I disputed it and they never responded. Amount is small enough I think the mortgage company will overlook it as long as I show I did something to clear up the mistake.
okay, i was wrong (eating my humble pie) i forget my inexperience does show sometimes. please charge it to my head and not my heart.
My second question, it appears from the discussion the past few days that the collection arm of a bank is subject to the validation laws just like any collection agency, correct? It depends. If they use a name other than the banks name, then they may be subject to the FDCPA. You need to read section 803 of the FDCPA. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm
