Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Well, if you think so, I'm really glad ... this would be one time I would be very happy if someone proved me wrong ... Here it is: [color=0066FF]§ 809. Validation of debts (b) ... until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.[/color] Lets break it down ... until the debt collector obtains [1] verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, [2] or the name and address of the original creditor, and [1] a copy of such verification or judgment, [2] or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector The way I see it, they could easily get away reading it this way: until the debt collector obtains [2] the name and address of the original creditor and [2] name and address of the original creditor is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector Then the only way to see the real validation is to take them to the court. So, what do you guys think?
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? The items you describe rise only to the level of "verification". That is to say "making sure" that the information the CA has in their system matches what the OC is claiming to be owed. That's a HUGE difference from "Validation". Requiring a level of proof that; A) YOU are the correct person who owes the debt B) That a debt IS actually owed in the first place C) That the AMOUNT being claimed is precisely correct All 3 of these elements can be argued successfully unless your adversary PROVES these items. But yeah, you're right. 809 could use some clarification. Thank God we now have at least a few cases to fall back on, like Spears. Once you've repeatedly requested this information, which obviously you have a right to, and they fail to produce it until you're in front of a Judge, guess who ain't gonna like that too much. I know you've been watching Greenvans case v. Houshold. Opposing councel attempted to claim legal fees because he insisted GV filed a frivolous case. If you end up in court and suddenly your adversary "pops out" with all this evidence, why wouldn't the Judge be pissed that they didn't provide it in the first place? That's all I wanted to know judge. Why not sanction their butts for wasting not only MY time but YOURS too? lol Am I understanding you Vlad? .
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Also - the fact that Congress used "validation" and "verification" *interchangeably* in 809 bugs the crap outta me too. lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Yep, but that's what the law says ... as you said in your next post - go figure ... You're right, it will not be a good impression. Practically, in the court room. But, if you remember, I labeled my question "the validation they are obligated to send to us" ... I am talking about this - if they send me just the name and the address of the creditor and I try to sue them because they didn't send me proper verification, they can defend themselves this way. Yeah ... takes away all the sense of all our discussions about the difference between "validation" and "verification" ... I think what they mean is that a "verification" is the actual paper evidence, while a "validation" is the whole process of obtaining the verification. The section is named "Validation of debts", but inside they say "until the debt collector obtains verification".
Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? I know. Unfortunately according to the rules of statutory construction the headers of the titles in these codes don't mean anything. Any judge knows that. The great news is we can always argue. No matter what they send they will always forget something. If they prove you owe the debt now argue the amount, and visa versa. Whatever they forget that's what we argue. It's [as Doc calls it] the nuisance quotient that gets us our resolution. Not winning in court. Like the old adage. "If the law is against you argue the facts. If the facts are against you argue the law. If they're BOTH against you, attack your opponents character."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Butch, The words validation and verification are not used interchangeably. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? You can't read (b) in the manner you have, vghost, it is attached to (a) and related to (a)4 and (a)5 specifically. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? OK, let see them both ... [color=0066FF]FCDPA § 809. Validation of debts (a)(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (a)(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. [/color] Both are statements which must be included in the collector's notice. It is their statement, not a law clause, that they would do something. If you are right, the action in both statements must be taken and 809(b) should read "verification of the debt, AND the name and address" instead of "verification of the debt, OR the name and address". The conjunction "OR" says that only one of the statements could be executed, this way making it clear that only one of the actions in these statements is required by the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? It's always nice discussing the law with you, Sassy ... I really hope you are right ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Indeed it is, vghost It is easy enough to read for oneself vghost and see what it says and what it doesn't say. We've all the ability and responsibility to do that. Linking to your related thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54340 The problem still is, if you don't know what the purpose of the validation section is, what it intends to address -- nothing else matters. You say the purpose and intent is "not clear yet" -- somehow everything in this thread and in your linked thread, an index of sorts, is validation. So, I'll submit to you again, that it matters not what you think validation is or isn't or what the FDCPA says or doesn't say about it, if there is no understanding of what the purpose of the validation section IS and what it intends to address, everything attempted to be attached to it as some sort of substantiating definition (no matter the dictionary, case, source or how long the thread) can only remain undefined, confusing, and never understood. Sassy
As I said before, in my thread I wanted to get together all the law quotes I could find, hoping that the others will post whatever I've missed, so we'll at least have everything the law says in one place. I did agree with you on that in the other thread, so lets try to figure it out and summarize it. Then we can put the law quotes and the summary together, and make it clear once and for all. The two questions are: 1. What is the purpose of validation? 2. What does the validation intend to address? IMO, the purpose of validation is to prove without any doubt that: - the debt exists; - I owe the debt; - the debt is owned to this creditor/collector; - the amount they say I owe is the correct amount. As for the second question, (could be because of my bad English) I'm not even sure I understand the difference ... Since you brought these questions, you may open a new thread as well and I will be happy to join.
vghost, I think we're just not communicating today. I like your thread, it's a great resource, that's why I linked it -- I like this thread, there's a lot of brain aerobics that have cycled through. The question though, as this thread is titled, what is validation, has been answered, the answer is its purpose and what the section was intending to address. You asked what was missing from your thread, that is what is missing. Your thread is based on this one, as an index, that is why this thread is so long, it is missing. It is not that it is a great mystery or new question or even an unanswered question -- it's just not in these threads. You said it was "not clear yet" -- you'll never find clarity without it. Sassy
Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? LOL ... Sassy, I think it's just because of my English. I had a similar misunderstanding with jlynn yesterday - sometimes I'm a real failure reading between the lines and I'm just not getting it ...
Ok, a bump with feeling -- and two questions... #1) On the issue in the first post about the date of the validation needing to post-date the request for validation. BTW: I like the opinion that the validation needs to be obtained after the fact, but this single opinion seems to be coming up as a roadblock to that view. Castle Question #1 http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/castle.htm #2) and this comes from the congressional verbiage screw up referred to by BUTCH, but disputed by sassy. CA2 that I am dealing with referred to the 809 notice correctly as a validation notice in responding to a complaint against them; however they then say "The documents provided by CA2 have fullfilled our legal obligations in responding to a request for verification of a debt." Dispite the fact that I specifically requested validation and not verification; AND I specifically outlined what I demanded for a successful response to the validation letter. Now, Sassy this is an example of the verbiage screw up that BUTCH was outlining, because the validation notice only specifies the need for verification, and not validation CAs like CA2 can attempt to evade providing validation by providing illegible documentation just because it verifies (the parts that you can actually read) the account, as they want to verify it.
Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? You don't necessarily need a winnable case to file a law suit. All you need is a legitimate argument. .
The last statement on the list is the one in which I am referring to that appears to be conflicted with the Castle opinion. Of course, it'll be for them to bring it up... I sure as heck won't...
