What do most collection agencies consider as complete validation? I would think that most CAs would want to provide as much "detailed" documentation as possible (copy of original contract, billing statements, etc). The type of documents that a judge and jury would require at a court trial. And, if the FTC rules (FCRA) require that a CA provide notice to the major CRAs that a debt is being disputed, then why don't they do this. In addition to paying off old debts, I have disputed some that I did not recognize as mine or that I felt the amount of money being requested was not accurate. Yet, I have not had one CA send a notice to the CRA that the debt was being disputed. And the most I have ever received in the form of "validation" is a letter stating, we looked in our file and we determined that "yes" you do owe the debt. Would a CA stand before a judge and just make a statement "Your honor, according to the documents we have back at the office in our file cabinet or on our computer, yes she owes us a debt", or would not the judge demand to see original documents that provide "positive" proof of the debt? Would it not be best to simply provide "full and complete" validation to the consumer's request up-front instead of waiting for the debtor to file suit in court in order to receive documentation and to demand damages due to violations of the FCRA?
Validation takes work. There is no guarantee that after doing it, they will be any closer to getting paid. In many cases, it is cheaper for a CA to just cut their losses and sell to another CA. Their return is based on how many cases they can close with payment. The side effect is that accounts with illegitimate claims, and mistakenly identified debtors, bounce from CA to CA, doing increasing damage to innocent parties with no resolution.
Texan, you have a misconception about the CAs. You make the assumption that they are reasonably intelligent individuals with a desire to be fair, just and equitable. Nothing could be further from the truth. All they are interested in is collecting money while performing the least amount of work. Their lame attempt at validation is never intended to be used if they were to go to court, which is way too costly for most of them to do. Most of the time, they don't even HAVE the documentation. They have to go back to the OC to get all of the details and documents. Rather, they are just hoping that the recipient is too gullible to challenge the statements they have made and will just cave in.
Re: Re: Why CAs Don't Validate? I believe this is actually the closest to the truth. Debts that come will full "media" or documentation are more expensive to buy than debts that do not have such information. In the majority of cases, because CA's want to maximize returns, they buy the cheapest debts--which amounts to the least documented. If they buy a portfolio without documentation, they have no hope of getting the "media" after purchasing the portfolio because the typical debt purchase contract has an "as-is" sort of "don't call us back about this" clause in it by the OC. That's why validation works so often. I had a debt once (it was mine, or highly probably mine) for a parking ticket. When I asked the collect chick what date the infraction occurred it was six months prior to when I purchased the car. So I told her, "I didn't even own the car at that time." She flew into a temper, "That doesn't matter! It's yours. Your name is on it. You have to pay it." I chuckled. I could tell that she was annoyed that I had gotten her to even give up a debt-squashing tidbit like the date the infraction occurred. I paid for deletion, because the number of tickets she had for me seemed like the # of tickets and dollar amounts that I remembered racking up and I didn't want the hassle. I didn't bother asking for proof, because based on how she reacted I knew they didn't have it. Another example... I was dunned by a small local collection agency for a bounced check on an account that is no longer open. I put them through the paces about validation, produce the check or bug off, etc. It took a shortwhile (less than 30 days) but they produced the check. It was clearly mine. I paid for deletion. My conclusion: If the CA has the documentation, they will produce it easily. If they won't produce the docs or stall, it's because they simply don't have it and most likely can't get it.
Re: Re: Why CAs Don't Validate? Not only that but they also attempt to "optimize" profits by trying to collect MORE than what is owed. Once they pull a stunt like that they're not about to prove it in writing. LOL § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;
Re: Re: Why CAs Don't Validate? Do CAs usually appear in court when you file suit for FTC violations? After sending several requests for validation via certified mail, filing complaints with the Atty General, BBB and sending disptes to CRAs and with no "real" response from CAs and no deletion, the next srep would be the courthouse.
Re: Re: Re: Why CAs Don't Validate? I don't believe collection agencies like going to court. I would have to believe that they don't like because a) they are hated by everyone; b) they probably don't have any evidence whatsoever; and c) getting sued is not the way to make money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why CAs Don't Validate? They won't like me one bit. My wife's was served this week with a court date in Feb! They haven't called yet to grovel at my feet, but I really don't care. I'll take my chances in court. I've got full blown documentation!!! Twice failed validation, twice verified to the CRA, no dispute recorded on the reports either. All for a debt of under $200. What dumb-asses. All they had to do was delete after the 2nd CRRR dispute with an ITS attached. Guess they thought I was bluffing Guess they feel that all people bluff when it comes to challenging their (so called) authority.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why CAs Don't Validate? when it comes to challenging their (so called) authority. mitch ================ *they probably don't have any evidence whatsoever. 95 to 99 % of the time they don't have it. *This right here takes away all of their authority.
1*What do most collection agencies consider as complete validation? I would think that most CAs would want to provide as much "detailed" documentation as possible (copy of original contract, billing statements, etc). The type of documents that a judge and jury would require at a court trial 2*Would a CA stand before a judge and just make a statement "Your honor, according to the documents we have back at the office in our file cabinet or on our computer, yes she owes us a debt", or would not the judge demand to see original documents that provide "positive" proof of the debt? 3*Would it not be best to simply provide "full and complete" validation to the consumer's request up-front instead of waiting for the debtor to file suit in court in order to receive documentation and to demand damages due to violations of the FCRA tex ================ 1*How can they do it when 95 to 99% of the time they don't have it? 2*They don't plan on it getting that far as their intent is to con you out of your money before it ever reaches that stage. 3*It's a numbers game they win more than they loose because not enough people sue them
