Validation?

Kara, I am gonna be sending you a computer printout for 2,500 dollars. Would you pay me that?

There is an FTC opinion letter stating that a itemization of charges on a computer printout is not valid verification.

 

"Verification" proves that the debt exists.

"Validation" means the CA must proves that the debt is YOURS.

when you request validation from a CA, you want proof that the debt is yours. in my opinion, a print out with my name on it does not prove to me that i owe this debt. i would require full accounting of the debt. in other words, prove that i opened the account, used the account, made payments on the account and subsequently stopped making payments. i would also require them to show me proof that they are authorized to collect on this debt.

 

Collection Agencies will confuse you and they never want to make sure you don't have rights other then to pay them!

Here is that letter:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

 

The FTC board talks about this in a meeting and they make the decision based on the laws governing the FCRA or FDCPA. Would you second guess them? I don't think a judge will either.

 

Couple of questions for you Kara(very nice name by the way :

Do YOU consider the printout to be validation?

Is this sufficient enough validation for you to pay the debt?

 

This is interesting because it deals with medial debts as opposed to CC debts. On this board, i've seen people post that they have received copies of the original CC agreement(with signature), copies of actual charges made on the CC, and copies of payments that were made on the account.

If you transfer this over to medical debts. I'm not sure what I would accept as validation. When you received the medical attention, did you sign anything, fill out any forms?

Regarding your original question, I guess there is not an opinion letter that states EXACTLY what is considered proof. But I think that would be tough to do, because every situation is different.

After you recieved the printout did you send a letter stating that this is not acceptable validation( ie: the Estoppel Letter)?

 

Spears v Brennan located here: http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html

and the principles of contract law, with the Wollman letter, provide the current basis of documentation required for validation.

Sassy

 

I'm sorry to ask what may be an obvious question, however, I'm not good at reading legalese and I can't seem to see the exact verbage in the SPEARS v. BRENNAN case stating that printed statements don't provide sufficient evidence.

This is one of the major areas I run into when helping friends repair their credit; CRA's seem to think that just about anything qualifies as validation.

For this reason, I would like to use this case while quoting specifically from it, because I've found that it helps to be explicit about exactly what it is that CRA's and creditors are doing wrong. Especially in the case of creditors and collections companies, when they almost always assume the consumer has no clue about the law ...and because they don't interpret a statute a particular way, no one else has the right to do so.

Thanks in advance for any insight!
-Rusten

 

"3. Statement that unless that consumer within 30 days after receipt of noticee disputes the debt it becomes valid.
"

Wrong: . Statement that unless that consumer within 30 days after receipt of noticee disputes the collector may ASSUME it's valid.

And I quote the Great law of this God made land:

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be *assumed* to be valid by the debt collector;


and from the same section:

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section *MAY NOT* be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.


God Bless America.


Basically this is saying the CA scum cannot report to the CRA immediately after receivin an account for collection. They must give you a chance to dispute it in 30 days. If you don't respond in 30 days then they are allowed to ASSUME the debt is valid and report to the CRA acccordingly.

 

Here is the actual language, copiend and pasted, from Spears v. Brennan about what it says constitutes actual proof of a debt. In essence, here it states that not even a signed contract is enough! It wants an accounting for payments made, fees assessed, etc.
(This is found just before the "Conclusion.")


"The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spearsâ?? loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments."

It pays to read it all the way through!

 

Hello and thank you for the great information!

I apologize- perhaps I should have communicated my confusion more specifically. I read all of the points, including the quote you provided.

I still don't see where it says a statement of account wouldn't constitute validation. Let me explain. The point you quoted:

"A review of the [contract] reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spearsâ?? loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments"

Doesn't this imply that a statement of account (possibly in combination with the contract) *may* provide adequate documentation?

Don't get me wrong - I'm with everyone else looking for the golden egg where I can wrap a quote around something unambiguous and tell CRA/CA's to stuff it. It just appears I'm overlooking something in this document?

Thanks again for the insight!
-Rusten

 

Well ... You're looking for something that's not in the document. Naturally that makes it difficult. lol


There are several components that constitute proper validation.

If you get a contract copy without a complete accounting forget it. And visa versa.

At minimum they need to provide a contract copy with your signature, an accounting statement with every payment (and all that listed in the Spears case). More over, it must match TO THE PENNY of what they are trying to collect.

And then how do you know you must pay the CA? They must provide a copy of the assignment agreement prooving they have responsibility to receive pmt.

Next, a copy of their certification saying they are licenesed/registered to conduct collections in your state AND their state.

As you can see this is all a tough hurdle and most CA's can't do it.

But that's in a perfect world. In the REAL world it works on a prponderance of evidence and a judges interpretation of that evidence. That's why some lose their cases even though the CA doesn't have all the validation.

Sassy has written eloquently on what constitutes proper val.

 

Doesn't this imply that a statement of account (possibly in combination with the contract) *may* provide adequate documentation?
Rusten
-----------------------------
Even with both of these items the debt still may not be valid.


LB 59

 

I know others have probably asked this question before so I apologize as I am I still confused on this subject. Does the FDCPA states exactly how long one has to ask for validation? Is it within the 30 days that you first receive the CA's letter?

 

no, you can request validation anytime after the original 30 days.