Validation w/Original Creditors

Validation is required by the FDCPA. The original creditor isn't bound by it. So they don't have to validate. If you still owe them money, you'll be waking the "sleeping dogs".

People have modified the validation letter for use with the original creditor. Psychdoc came up with the "Litigous Nutcase" letter for use with fully paid original creditors. More specifically, for late pays, but it would apply to pd chgoffs as well.

Settlement for deletion is another option.

 

It's funny how I've had creditors delete trades with validation when they didn't have too.

I think there is some luck involved. I don't know why it works sometimes. In the past I modified the validation letter for use with the original creditor. I sent to two orig creditors who I had paid chgoffs with. Neither one bit. One sent me fraud info and bugged me by phone. The other didn't know what I was after, but didn't verify the next time I disputed. So I guess it kind of worked.

I can speculate why it works in some cases. I don't think in either of my cases they took it to their legal department. It got to a Financial type or a supervisor and they tried to deal with it as best they could.

I have the nutcase letter and I'll use it. If the creditor does not respond, what grounds do I have for litigation.

Unless the information is truly wrong or not yours, I don't think you have legal grounds. With that being said, my new approach is to bug the original creditor until they screw up. If I have a tradeline that has been verified multiple times on a CRA dispute, I change up and go after the creditor. If you can get them to break some laws that do apply to them (FCRA), then you have legal grounds. For example, Original creditor #1 from my past sent me a fraud form. I kept corresponding with them and they got irritated and re-aged my account. Then they pulled a hard inquiry. I was about to sue them, but they accepted my pre-lawsuit settlement offer and removed the derog from all 3.

Do you not send validation to creditors because you're afraid they will come after you or because they truly are not legally bound to respond?

This depends. If your after a fully paid tradeline, I don't worry about them coming after me, because they already have what they want, my money They aren't legally bound to answer my validation, but if you can be a pain in their a$$, they are going to want you to go away. If you can raise the question that they may be violating some law, they should respond. I think the key to this is not letting them know that all you are really after is the derog tradeline deletion. That can come up in the settlement, if it goes that way.

If you still owe them cash, it's a different story. If they aren't actively collecting, they might start. If they start collections they may be bound by the FDCPA (This is kind of fuzzy. I've never heard confirmation about the original creditor doing its own collections being bound to the FDCPA). In a case like this I would probably try to settle for a lesser amount if they will promise to delete, in writing.

 

<<they got irritated and re-aged my account. Then they pulled a hard inquiry.>>

Please help out a newbie and tell me what this means? Thanks

 

The FCRA states a specific timeframe for a charge off. 7 years from that date it falls off your credit file. Some less than scrupulous creditors and CRAs will change that date to something more current, extending the life of the negative reporting. That's a violation of your rights under the FCRA.

A hard inquiry without permissable purpose is also a violation.

Do yourself a favor, if you're in this for the long haul, be prepared to spend many hours reading. Read the FCRA back to back, read the FTC opinion letters pertaining to the FCRA and search old posts here.

And of course, WELCOME, don't be afraid to ask questions here