sent a validation letter to key bank on may 8, 2002 with the crrr being dated may 14, 2002 in the mail yesterday (may 20, 2002) i get this print out from key bank of my payment history plus four copies of invoices of where they "supposedly" made field calls to repossess my vehicle in 2000 - and also an invoice where to "supposedly" took the vehicle to the auction. point one: they did indeed "try" to repossess the vehicle ONCE and we came up with the money when they came to our door, they DID NOT take the vehicle. point two: is this acceptable validation? don't they have to provide a contract with our signature or something? just a bit of history - this account was acquired in 97 with auto finance group and during the first year it was sold to key bank. we finished making our payments in june of 2000 - and altho i admit we were late a few times, this company would start sending crrr on the 10th day late, so we usually paid it within 10 days, except for a period of time once were we became 30 days late. it was during this time that they came to reposses the vehicle with only 6 payments left in the loan any advice???? peace, jimrie
dIn this situation, rather than mess with validation, if you have your clear title and lien release, I would make copies of both and send it to Key Bank, with a letter stating they obviously are confused and to please immediately correct the records and credit reports.
lkh thanks for responding they have not released the title nor lease, saying we owe for the repo charges and a rollover late charge so what now? peace, jimrie
How did you phrase your validation request? Are you claiming the listing is inaccurate (or not yours at all). If you claim the listing is inaccurate, than this may be proof you need to justify to a court that they are indeed keeping bad records and you do not owe this amount, and the listing could be removed that way. Now you would be claiming that the contract was NOT YOURS...entirely different than the "inaccurate listing" claim above. Here is an FTC staff opinion letter on what constitutes proper validation for a CA: Wollman letter The problem is, you are validating with an original creditor and they are not bound by the FDCPA but they are bound by the FCRA to report accurate and up to date information. Bottom line is, I think you have to choose your best offense/defense here between "not mine" and "never late". -Peace, Dave
dave thank you first of all for answering my post - i was beginning to think i was talking to myself! this is a paragraph in my validation letter: In order to prove the debt, I must have a signed and sworn statement before notary public under penalty of perjury by a person having first hand knowledge of the indebtedness and stating that the reported indebtedness was a legal indebtedness under all applicable state and federal laws, was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, and furthermore swearing that this purported debt is not now nor ever has been part of any tax write off scheme nor insurance claim. Please be advised that I am requesting validation and competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation sans consumer protection encumbrance whereby I incurred the original claims associated with this trade line. so i guess i am claiming that the listing is inaccurate. i would think i am NOT claiming the contract is not mine, just the debt they say i owe $880 is not mine and the late pays are not true. i finished paying the vehicle off in june of 2000 and it says so on my tradeline - but they are saying that i am carrying 6 30 day lates on the report, which they are referencing this $880 and not my payment history with them. ahhh, tell me if i am wrong here - the ORIGINAL creditor was not key bank, but a company called "auto finance group" who sold the loan in the middle of the loan to key bank - so is "key bank" the oc or is afg? good question. anyway, thanks for the reply! and looking forward to hearing more about this peace, jimrie
Re: What Is Acceptable Validation?? Jimrie, no direct answer (I wish I had one for you), but I will offer an observation. You're quoting one of Bill Bauer's letters (creditwrench.com). Since you're apparently one of his clients (which I believe is a good choice, incidentally, although a controversial one around here -- I myself was a client briefly with success), I would suggest that you ask Bill for step-by-step guidance regarding this particular tradeline as well. Although Bill is certainly open to anyone collecting advice from everywhere, it may be that he has a particular plan in mind for you for this account, so I would definitely check. In case you're wondering, LOL, I recognized the letter you mentioned because he uses (wish my permission) a couple of lines I wrote myself: "was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products" and "Please be advised that I am requesting validation and competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation sans consumer protection encumbrance whereby I incurred the original claims associated with this tradeline." Good luck to you on this one! Doc
