This is my understanding of the 30 day 'rule" You can request validation of a debt AT ANY TIME from a CA. The only thing that the 30 days prevents is from the CA taking any other action to collect the debt. A dispute notice from the debtor within the 30 day period "freezes" any further collection attempts by the CA until the debt has been properly validated. After 30 days without hearing from the debtor the CA can legally assume that the debt is valid, and resume any collection method they choose to employ. If the debtor requests validation at some time past the 30 days, then the CA must cease all collection activities until he sends proper validation to the debtor pd11604 ================= This is all it amounts to: People get all tangled up in the 30 day bit and read all sorts of things into it that aren't there. It's only confusing it you make it so. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""Shakey went to a psychiatrist. "Doc," he said, "I've got trouble. Every time I get into bed, I think there's somebody under it. Then, when I get under the bed, I think there's somebody on top of it. Doc, you've gotta help me, I'm going crazy!" "Just put yourself in my hands for two years," said the psychiatrist. "Come to me three times a week, and I'll cure your fears." "How much do you charge?" "My fee is per visit." "That's awfully expensive, Doc," reckoned Shakey. "Let me sleep on it, and I'll get back to you." Six months later, the doctor and Shakey crossed paths. "Why didn't you ever come to see me again?" asked the psychiatrist. "For a visit? Heck, a bartender cured me for !" "How do you figure?" asked the psychiatrist. "He told me to cut the legs off the bed!"
Gotcha! Now I'm starting to see the beauty of this process now and how it might just work. FedUp2003 ------------------------------------ Does not might. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
lbrown59, Good clarifications, I now see what you mean. If the CA was off the hook after 30 days, then they could claim you own any amount they choose, or pick some fictitous creditor that you never heard of. BTW, in your last post, did you mean to say: "Does, not might" or "Does not, might" Either you're telling me it might work, or forget about that might stuff, it DOES work. Anyhow ... I really appreaciate all the feedback. Hopefully this discussion will help someone to understand Validation better and to know what their rights are. I'm just waiting to get signed up for some monitoring program, like Privacy Guard or something, so that I'll be able to start pulling my CR as often as I need to in order to monitor my progress and see if things are properly being marked In Dispute, etc ... without having to pay $8 to $14 per report. Any suggestions on good monitoring programs to use? FedUp2003
Two quick questions . . . (I can't seem to come across the answer to these in my searches.) 1) At what point should I expect to see my account marked as "in dispute"? I currently have several being disputed (via validation to CA followed by dispute with CRA) and none of them are marked as in dispute. 2) If a CA does not validate to me within the 30-day CRA dispute period and ultimately does not verify to the CRA and (hopefully) the TL is deleted, can the CA validate at a later point and then put the TL back on? 3) Mostly a philosophical question . . . if a CA does not validate, but rather sells the account to another CA, isn't that a continued collection activity? My thought process is that when they sell the account it is a reasonable expectation that the result of the sale will be continued collection activity. Just a thought. Thanks!
Either you're telling me it might work, or forget about that might stuff, it DOES work. ================== forget about that might stuff, it DOES work.
What's to keep them from deliberately mailing it to the wrong address to deny the consumer the right of his/her 30-day right to verification!? MaxedOut | 14 posts since Jul 2003 ================================== It's not the consumers 30 day right to demand validation. The consumer has this rite any time. The only 30 day rite is the Period of time that the CA has to assume that the debt is valid. Once the consumer demands validation {either before or after 30 days} from the CA the CA no longer has a rite to assume anything. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
2. What to do if the CA refuses to provide verification by saying my 30-day window for requesting such has passed? -Even if they can't prove I ever received the dunning letter and therefore started the 30-day clock. 4*Should I just keep demanding verifiaction until they sue me, and hope that the judge sees my demand as reasonable? MaxedOut | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2*The consumer has no 30 day window in which to demand proof of the debt. The CAs 30 day window for assuming may have passed but the consumers window is still open! 4*Why keep asking them for something we know they don't have and aren't going to provide? Why would you want them to sue you?
1*) At what point should I expect to see my account marked as "in dispute"? I currently have several being disputed (via validation to CA followed by dispute with CRA) and none of them are marked as in dispute. 3* can the CA validate at a later point and then put the TL back on? merlin ============= 1*Why would you want them to do that? 3*How likely is that to happen?
Thanks! For the clarifications lbrown59. To summarize, the first 30 days is only to limit the actions of the CA initially, cause at that point they can't ASSUME anything. If past the 30 days, a comsumer can STILL request validation, cause the FDCPA applies to the CA, not the consumer, and nothing specifies that the consumer ever loses any right or protection or procedure at all. About the CA saying they don't have to Validate after the initial 30 days, I think, is still debatable. I agree with you and others that the consumer has not given up his rights by waiting beyond 30 days, but what if you get those nasty, rude CA reps who quote that piece of the FDCPA and in "their" interpretation, they say that since consumer didn't write is within 30 days of receiving the dunning notice, then we the CA no longer have to provide Validation. Is there case law, FTC opinion, or something else to quote or cite, cause basically if the CA wishes to push the issue, it's basically your word/interpretation of the FDCPA against their's, and it seems like this would have to go to court. I know they aren't required to Validate, and if they can't, they aren't suppose to Verify to the CRA's when the CRA calls to investigate the Dispute you sent in to the CRA, But, what if CA doesn't mark account in dispute, Verifies with the CRA, and tells consumer the reason is because they (the CA) believes they don't have to after the 30 days. All I'm basically looking for, is there precedence or actual case law or FTC opinion letter that specifically says the CA still has to Validate of they receive a request from consumer after the first 30 days of notice letter. Maybe this has been pointed out before, but I'm just missing it. Thanks for all Replies! FedUp2003
Jus re-read thru this thread and some others, and it's pretty clear the consensus is that the consumer has every right to still request Validation from the CA, even past 30 from the first notice. At this point, just looking for actual proof or case law or precedence, cause I have a strong feeling the CA I'm dealing with will tell me they don't have to since this is past 30 days, and I'm looking for something "forceful" to push back into their face, other than saying what the FDCPA states, or rather implies by it's "silence" on the matter. FedUp2003
Also, This is a Paid Collection. So I can't use the argument with them that "if they don't validate I'm not sending another dime." And since this was already reported, and paid - by rquesting validation, that would mean they would have to stop "collection activities" and in my case all that is required is they mark "In Dispute" with the CRA's. If it goes no further, they do not validate cause they say they don't have to, but DO mark account as "In Dispute" how long can/will that remark stay in the CR? If it remains for 30 days, is that reason enough to request the CRA to delete the Tradeline?
Here's more good info about what might or might not constitute full or proper validation: quote: Originally posted by rusten Hello and thank you for the great information! Doesn't this imply that a statement of account (possibly in combination with the contract) *may* provide adequate documentation? Thanks again for the insight! -Rusten Found this in the thread titled: Validation? authored by karak
Another question I sent my validation out last Thursday CMRRR. They received it yesterday. At 8 AM this morning I got a call from them, but they hung up when I answered. In three previous phone calls with them before my validation/verification letter, they told me not to validate because they have already validated with the bank and there is no need for me to do so also, they have already verified, they don't make mistakes, and the bank would never send them something that was not correct. I am assuming their call this morning was to feed me more of the same BS and to try to get a payment. My question is this: When they call again, should I just tape it? I can tape in my state without permission. I don't mind talking to them even though I am aware of the general rule not to talk to them. I am interested in racking up some violations to hold over their head.
Another question When they call you again tell them to put anything they have to say to you in writing, and to mail it to you. Tell they they should only contact you by mail Write them a letter CMRRR reminding them of your conversation (include in the letter that you have taped it "for training and quality control purposes" LOL), and repeat your equest that they only contact you in writing.
Another question 1*they told me not to validate because they have already validated with the bank and there is no need for me to do so 2*they told me not to validate because they have already validated with the bank and there is no need for me to do so also, they have already verified, they don't make mistakes Karen ================= 1*Yer not the one validating-it's them! 2*Say well in that case sending the validation isn't a problem then is it? THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
