VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

Unless your state law also defines original creditors as DEBT COLLECTORS, ORIGINAL CREDITORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLY, LET ALONE SEND THE CONSUMER ANYTHING if the consumer disputes an account with the original creditor.

Federal laws are in addition to state laws.
this is not true, original creditors are not exempt they must provide proof of the debt see 15 U.S.C 1692 this is from my lawyer.

-ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. FCRA 623 (b).

the consumer does not need to dispute anything with the CRA they can dispute it directly with the furnisher and the furnisher is obligated to verify the information to the consumer within 30 days.

in addition if the consumer disputes the acct with the CRA the furnisher has a duty to investigate and provide only accurate info to the CRA within 30 days.

 

-Correct, a consumer MAY BE ABLE TO REQUEST VALIDATION from a collection agency, IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE 30 DAY VALIDATION PERIOD.

say a consumer never recieved a notice from the CA & found it on the CR they have every right to dispute it. go to the FTC website and look it up. there is no time barred!

-"Proof that the debt is legally collectable" is again, for a trier of fact to decide. Establishing the "legality" of a debt IS NOT PART OF THE VALIDATION/VERIFICATION process.

that is why validation / verification exists its not just a question if you have my personal info you owe me kind of thing its this is a ligitimate debt and here is the proof you owe me by producing this evidence.

no proof of a debt= uncollectable by federal law not state law.FDCPA

-An example of a debt not being legally collectable is if it is "time-barred", meaning it is out of the statute of limitations.

you are correct in this case, but there are other reasons as well.

sorry if I seem upbrupt, that is not my intention here I just want to relay correct factual law not opinion. forgive me if this upsets you.

 

Validation

I don't know that this word is mentioned even once in the FCRA, and certainly not in the context that it is mentioned in the FDCPA.

It is not in my opinion a well defined term. It does not have a lot of force as far as I am concerned. The purpose of validation is to address mistakes of fact regarding at least who an account belongs to and the balance. This purpose addresses typos and other clerical errors that occur in accounting.

Verification

(in the Section 611 context)

This is a minimal task that a CRA does (allegedly) in response to a Section 611 consumer voiced by a consumer regarding the completeness or accuracy of any item of information on their consumer report.

In most cases, this is all that a CRA will do if they do it at all. I don't think that Experian even does this, and I don't know the percentage of times that they do.

Verifying is equivalent to "parroting" exactly what the furnisher tells the CRA. Section 611(a)(4) if memory serves requires the CRA to review and consider information (documentation) submitted by the consumer during their reinvestigation. If a CRA does this (and none of them ever do to my knowledge unless the document is generated by the furnisher), the implication is that the CRA is not solely relying on the furnishers response to the CRA's alleged verification efforts.

My research leads me to the conclusion that a CRA will at most conduct an "investigation" regarding the authenticity of any documents that the consumer submits. The question is: Is this an authentic document that was prepared by the furnisher?

In other words, the content of the consumer's "dispute" is irrelevant except to the extent that the consumer is providing information that was authentically furnished by the creditor. Experian has a mysterious 'authentication policy' that may or may not exist in reality. Experian expressly rejected two documents from two different furnishers (USAA and Citibank) that I attached to two disputes regarding those two tradelines. Each letter instructed Experian to update as 'current and never late,' yet Experian updated the delinquencies. Like that?

(In the Section 607(a) Context)

Verifying the identity of persons that obtain consumer reports from the CRA. This is much different, obviously, from verifying credit information.

Verifying one's identity must be done prior to furnishing a consumer report to that person. Providing a copy of current DL, utility bill, is part of verifying your identifying information.

The extent to which a CRA seeks to verify the identity of a prospective subscriber depends on the circumstances. If the subscriber is a good customer, a large collection agency, the CRA might even knowingly allow the subscriber to purposefully maintain entirely false and misleading identifying information. A "purpose" might be to obtain consumer reports for impermissible purposes to collect on debts that are known to be extinguished, but that the CA believes it might be able to squeeze a penny out of. (See "Fin Coll Agency"...I always get to it somehow. )

 

Experian expressly rejected two documents from two different furnishers (USAA and Citibank) that I attached to two disputes regarding those two tradelines. Each letter instructed Experian to update as 'current and never late,' yet Experian updated the delinquencies. Like that?

One would agree, I have attached per the CRA request valid documentation ( meaning) from the furnisher on their letterhead containing a signature stating that information was being reported incorrectly and needed to be adjusted.

I have personally had one of these items rejected along with a letter stating thank you for contacting ...
etc etc. we regret to inform you that we are unable to use the information that you have provided us and that we will be contacting the source directly nxt thing i know report is verified or updated but still incorrect. fustrating .. they need to get it right the first time and same us xtra work we should charge them for our time to correct their mistakes

 

ORIGINAL CREDITORS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER FDCPA IE 15 USC 1692.

then why is my attorney who specialize in this field who was former judge suing Cap 1 for this?

an OC who also collects a debt is considered a debt collector .

its how people interpret the laws.

 

What can I do about inaccurate or incomplete information?
A. Under the new law, both the CRA and the information provider have responsibilities for correcting inaccurate or incomplete information in your report.

To protect all your rights under this law, contact both the CRA and the information provider.

tell the creditor or other information provider in writing that you dispute an item. Many providers specify an address for disputes. If the provider then reports the item to any CRA, it must include a notice of your dispute. In addition, if you are correct - that is, if the information is inaccurate - the information provider may not use it again.

here is where the FTc says you can contact a creditor to dispute the information they furnish next I will look up the law that says a creditor must supply a consumer with verification of a debt. ck back tommorrow

 

MOST LIKELY, he is filing suit UNDER YOUR STATES DEBT COLLECTION LAWS.

"an OC who also collects a debt is considered a debt collector "

-UM NO AGAIN!

-An original creditor is an original creditor is an original creditor. UNLESS THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME OR your state law defines them as debt collectors


ok your right there my mistake sorry wasnt paying attention to what I was relating

 

Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

well stated, hiding

I would like your opinion on something, and I believe that I have a link on cnet...lemme snoop around with the search function, thanks

 

Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

hiding, here we go

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=416338#post416338

that is the "Legal Eagle" thread

and would like your opinion on the "TransUnion Plaintiffs/Priority Consumers" thread...just your gut reaction, please, if not your personal knowledge.

thanks

 

Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

hiding 90
in response to your quote

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS??? YOU ARE WAY OFF!

-ONLY if your state law allows it can a consumer dispute anything with the original creditor and have recourse if they do not reply. FCRA 623 (b)

"in addition if the consumer disputes the acct with the CRA the furnisher has a duty to investigate and provide only accurate info to the CRA within 30 days. "
******************************************
If i undersatnd this correctly , under the new facta laws not just my state law after a CRA completes an investigation and the consumer still disputes the acct, a consumer can contact the furnisher directly that being a creditor or CA) and further dispute the acct and request verification .

I understand if you notify a furnisher that you dispute an acct that they are required to flag the acct disputed, but if the furnisher fails to verify the acct with the consumer the FCRA leaves a remedy for a consumer to request deletion based upon the fact that the furnisher is reporting inaccurate UNverifable information. at this point the furnisher has a duty to remove that information.

 

Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

I wish you guys would learn how to use the quote function. Its very hard to follow what is going on..its quite simple:

Edit, ok that didn't work it quoted me LOL....delete the omit the "a" I typed to confuse the VB code

[aQUOTE] the part you want to quote [a/QUOTE]

 

Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

Under the present law, and only AFTER the furnisher receives notice of the consumer's dispute THROUGH THE CRA, a consumer can sue a furnisher under Sect 623(b) after the furnisher reports inaccurate information while failing to perform a "reasonable investigation." What is "reasonable" will depend on the circumstances, analogous to the "reasonable" standard of Sect 611.

Regarding your second paragraph above, it is the CRA that has a duty to delete or modify appropriately...the furnisher is out of the picture at that stage in the game.

 

Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION

hiding 90

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS??? YOU ARE WAY OFF!

-ONLY if your state law allows it can a consumer dispute anything with the original creditor and have recourse if they do not reply. FCRA 623 (b)
*****************************************
fun4u2
not true , if a creditor is a furnisher of information the FCRA states that the consumer can send a written dispute to the creditor directly after an investigation is completed with the CRA .

and request that the creditor 1. flag the acct disputed and 2. the consumer has a right to be able to verify the information directly with the furnisher .

therefore the furnisher has a two fold duty to verify and report only accurate info to the CRA and 2. to verify that information with the consumer upon written notice. this is why disputes exsist because furnishers not not always report accurate info nor do the CRA acyually investigation what they claim to.
this is why the law allows consumer to hold both the furnisher and CRA liable .