Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Well ... I need to run for now but I'll be back. I did want to let ya know that not only is Sassy a sassy gal, but she's also, without argument, one of the very brightest on any of these boards. If she says something, take it to the bank. (Unless she disagrees with me of course) ~~
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? I understand BUTCH, Take you time, ... I still would like your oppinion since you know both CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS , FDCPA and FTC case letters. If anybody can tie all that stuff together I'm sure you can. .....I just didn't want anybody to steal you THUNDER!!! BTW, if you sanction SASSYINAZ, a special thanks to SASSY.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? I understand BUTCH, Take you time, ... I still would like your oppinion since you know both CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS , FDCPA and FTC case letters. If anybody can tie all that stuff together I'm sure you can. .....I just didn't want anybody to steal you THUNDER!!! BTW, if you sanction SASSYINAZ, a special thanks to SASSY. MovingonUp, It's not possible to steal fave Butch growling dude's thunder, I swear it, cross my heart, search up any of his posts and you will see it's true! Tossing a lightening bolt at ya, Butch, and am now wondering if I should change your name to fave Butch thundering dude.... hmmmmm, I kinda like it, yeah I do!!!!!!!! ok, when are the sanctioning ceremonies scheduled for, I much prefer sanctioning over taken to the bank? LOL, I crack myself up. A GAL, Butch, what is that???? that reads so middle-aged, how come I'm not a chick anymore, eh? Your welcome, MovingonUp, I think, nonetheless I'll bow out of this thread and let Butch answer Butch threads, my apologies. Smoochies to you fave Butch thundering dude! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Hey, Sassy, don't be heart broken. I liked your answer, it was good one, you are always welcome to jump in, at least on any of my threads. I just realized after I hit the submit button your name was on it. ....I'm cool with your answer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Hey MovingOnUp, No worries, I'm not heart-broken. Butch always has provocative posts when brain aerobics are going on, they get you thinking, you asked him to respond, he will! I responded in the middle, that's what message boards are, interactive responses. The more the better, I say. No worries, really. Thank you though, it's all good! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solicitation postings violate the Creditnet Terms of Service and were removed for that reason. Decontextualized responses to that individual were also removed. CCN steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I noticed, Steve, QQ <------ big eyes You also removed a post by cre8ivegrl, that neither addressed the solicitor nor was contextualized in any manner as well as a response provided in the same manner. Sassy
....sigh..... my post was out of context?? All I really want to know is how validation from service industries vs. money industries differs? edit... I didn't read your post Sassy. Thanks.
I sure appreciate Steve's clean up of this thread, cre8ivegrl notwithstanding. Sometimes it's not so easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm sure Steve didn't mean to eliminate cre8ivegrl post. That said, I haven't forgotten your question cre8ivegrl . The problem with your case is simply that you're dealing with a lawyer. Nobody knows more about protecting themselves legally than a lawyer. lol If you run into a lawyer who also happens to be a crook, now we have a real problem. I'm working with a gal now who's lawyer is trying to extort $22,000 from her, for about 5 hrs. of work. In a service arrangement it gets tough because now we have just one more layer of validation to contend with. For example, if necessary many service providers can have an eye witness to the service either show up in court or provide testimony by affidavit. The only thing I can tell you is that with a service arrangement, with an eye witness, it just becomes a bit more difficult. That doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done, however. But it depends, even more now than in the typical situation, on the little idiosyncrasies of each individual case. Just wish I could be more helpful on this one. Someone said, God is in the details. Nowhere is it more true than in a case like yours. Email me your specifics and we see if we can work up a strategy.
Thanks Butch, I will take you up on that. With services in this nature, I am certain that judges are leery of even getting close to that line of what constitutes "service" for fear of opening up a gigantic can of worms. Getting away from my circumstances... here's one we've all felt.... Medical doctors are the best example. A person takes off work to take a sick kid with a sore throat in to the doctor just to be responsible and make sure they are not spreading an illness. Something society urges us to do. However, this person waits in the waiting room for an hour, and then again in the exam room for another 30 minutes. The doctor comes in, checks ears, nose and throat, announces that it is a cold and sends everyone on their way with the advice to buy Dimatapp. Maybe a 3 minute visit, tops. The bill arrives. $160. $160??? For 3 minutes and a a wooden tongue depressor? Not to mention lost wages while waiting. No apology from the good doc. Yet, if you are 30 days late with the $160 it goes to a collection agency and onto your credit. Now the doctor provides validation. $xx for the office visit. But who governs this? Is this something a judge would say "if you don't like the doc's fees find another doc" ??? Or is there ever leverage? Say in a larger city where doctors that take new patients are a rare commodity. OR --- When asking for validation can you reasonably request why they charge what they do? Exact itemization? For example, of the $160 if the doc is making $100 an hour, assuming the clinic charges an hour minimum, where does the other $60 go to? $.10 for the tongue depressor. $.06 for the soap the good doc washed his hands with. $.40 to electricity in the room while you were in it, $.35 to heat in the room while you were in it, $.02 for the part of the magazine that you read while waiting. ??? What would a judge say if someone actually held a service accountable for their pricing. I know you hear about it occassionally on the news but rarely do you hear the outcome. Are there people who regulate service industries or is it supply and demand and if you are dumb enough to walk in the door, you can pay the exhorbant amounts that are demanded?
Butch, Been reading the Validation Thread that you started ... and have found it very fascinating and informative. ... but with Bill Bauers comments and HelpWanted, etc ... I still remain a little comfused .... also, it seems that you never really got to finish your train of thought ... Got a few questions, would love you to email me back. If you reach me at the CN email link of my userid, FedUp2003, then I'll email back to you my Hotmail acct. Or, you may just want to post my questions and your answers this the Validation Thread for all to read. Here goes: As far as I understand, A CA can still report the Collection and engage in collection activity within the first 30 days, AS long as the consumer has not sent a Validation request (is a dispute with the CA the same as a Valiation request?) If consumer disputes/validates within first 30 days, the CA must stop collection activity AND mark your CR as in Dispute at the CRA's, but NOT neccessarily have to Remove it. One posted it seems most CA's don't report to CRA's within the first 30 days anyhow, so the act of Validating/Disputing may actually cause CA to report this, but annotate it's in dispute. So, it's up to our discretion to validate - if it's already reported then it can't hurt. Question - Can we or can't we Validate after 30 days have elapsed. The CA's can ASSUME the debt to be valid and continue with reporting and/or collection activities. If a Conusmer CAN ask for Validation after 30 day mark, then what happens, the CA is only required to mark the Tradeline/Account as "In Dispute" with the CRA's, right? So what does Validating do for the Consumer? My guess: 1. Corrects those situations in which a debt really is NOT a person's, and you make the CA show proof - (or lack thereof makes the CA go away and removes the Tradeline entry) 2. Gives the Consumer a little time within first 30 days, maybe time to come up with the money and pay off debt before the CA actually reports it to the CRA's. 3. If done beyond 30 days, just causes the CA to mark account "In Dispute," or does the CA have to? If they do, then people wanting to apply for credit will have a small window to apply in which that account is marked in dispute. 4. Or, a possible positive outcome might be that CA is too lazy or unable to Validate/Verify the debts and therefore has no choice but to delete. 5. One last item, the CA may not mark an account in dispute, so you are able to get them in violation of FDCPA, and then use as leverage to get them to delete or be sued. Is this the main reason, hoping they will not mark account as "In Dispute" thereby giving you rights to sue them, and really you are just looking for this leverage to get them to Delete? Also, according to some letter, I think a Cass Letter, if you Validate, they have to stop collection activity and the Opinion of the Cass Letter said that "reporting to the CRA's was considered a collection activity" and so they have to temporarily DELETE the tradeline? or just mark it as In Dispute? And, is this only if done within the first 30 days? Does this work with already Paid Collections? What of the OC was your County Tax dept, you felt you did not owe the tax, and so they turned it over to a CA? Hope this is not too lengthy and you can not possibly realize how VERY MUCH I would/will appreciate your feedback on this. FedUp2003 P.S. You are a much better writer than I am and make complicated issues simple, so please feel free to edit my remarks for clarity. Thanks!
Hi Bill and thread. This is my second post here. (the first one being about 5AM this morning) I have an odd situation. Data is being sent from TU to Fast Issac. Fast Issac then sends a report back to TU who then sends it out to everybody. There are no line items showing delinquicies. Yet the summary section says "You have evidence of seriously delinquent payment behavior (60 days past due or greater)" This is a misleading statement .. who is responsible for it? How would I get it fixed. (Or should I ask "who do I sue?" <g>) thanks Gersh
Hi Bill .. I was thinking .. I used to know a Bill Bauer, years ago before I was "marked and avoided." Then I saw the post where you said something about the bible .. Hey Bill!! what's up??!! Nice to see you here. If you feel up to it, give me a call. I'm living in Dexter now 424-3374 God bless Gersh
Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? thanks George .. BTW I just loved your explanation of the FICO method of scoring .. It brought tears to my eyes.
Butch, sorry to bring up an old post, but when you send out your validation letters to CA's do you demand validation (original contract) within the 15 days above? If I am understanding this correctly I can demand proof of the original debt from the collection agency. They have 15 days to provide it; however the CRA have 30 day to conduct thier investigation/verifications. So....it would be better to attack the CA first. If they produce the contract after the 15 days do we have to accept it or can we move forward with demanding the item be removed from our credit reports?
Help. Can I get a copy of a validation letter to send to a collection agency that just verified an account with the credit bureau. This is over 7 years but they verified it. HELP TOM
