what is a validation letter?

i have several questions about validation letter:
Seems that way! LOL


1) what is a validation letter?
I've deleted a lot here because the questions have no bearing on fact.
A validation letter simply demands an accounting of what it is claimed you owe and why. That is, in it's simplest terms exactly what a validation letter is and what it does. There are other things that can and should be brought out in a good validation letter but it should be kept short and on point in all it's terms. If a validation letter is more than one page long, it's too long and wordy to be of all that much value. There are long and lengthy validation letters available here on the net and in this forum. I disagree with all of them for a variety of reasons, but they do work. It is just my personal preference that they be short, on topic and to the point.

2) can a debt be bought by several ca's? Well, not bought by several CAs because you can't sell a dog to several people at the same time and get away with it. But that does not keep several from attempting to collect a debt. Collection agencies can and sometimes do claim they "own" the debt when they really don't. But then I can claim I own the Brooklyn Bridge without breaking any laws. I would only break the law if I attempted to set up a toll booth at each end or to sell it to yet another person.

does ccc have to let customer know that it is now
selling the debt to a ca/ca's? and if by selling the debt to a ca, does the ccc absolve itself from this case?
You are asking some questions here that you probably should be asking of qualified legal counsel. There are some websites here on the internet frequented by attorneys who could probably give more correct answers than most here.

Be that as it may, it is my understanding that by law they are supposed to notify you of their pending action. Some do it, some don't.

3) is validation for credit bureaus (CB) and nothing to do with ca?

Your question is not very clear here, but if you are asking what I think you are asking, credit bureaus do not legally have to validate a debt. They only have to verify it.

 

I'll take a shot....

A validation letter is generally sent to a third party collection agency, asking them to prove that the debt is yours. It is sent in response to an initial "attempt to collect a debt" letter from them, where they give you 30 days to dispute the accuracy of their information.It can be used under other circumstances - depends...

Yes the debt can be sold and resold - there is no law against that. However the FCRA says that a debt can only be reported (on your credit report) once. No duplicates. No notification is required. - you find out some other way.

"Absolve" is not really the right word, LOL. Sometime the debt is collected by an inhouse collection agency - actually the original creditor, sometimes it is assigned for outside collection, and the CA is paid a percentage or commission for collecting, and sometimes it is sold outright - uuaually after being charged-off to P&L by the original creditor.

No, "validation" is usually used for third party collection agencies (on this board, that's the terminology anyway), while "verification" is used to refer to credit bureaus.

All of these letters, terms and procedures come from the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You can find these in their entirety on the Federal Trade Commission website.

Hope this helps.

breeze

 

What are a consumer's validation rights after the 30 days following the initial letter from the collector?

 

Hey Greg...I have seen where you remind them that they are breaking the law in a second follow up letter...restate your demand and give them 15 days...also letting them know that you intend to take further actions if they don't comply...you know FCRA...I'm sure someone else here can restate this better that I can.....Anyone?

 

See, I knew someone would know better than I.

 

Lizardking---

Since I know you are the validation guru, what if they have already put it on your credit report and never contacted you? I have sent a validation letter stating that they never contacted me and wanted to know what the debt was. 20 days and counting and no response. Do I have any remedies? Thanks for your advice.

 

While I don't mean to ursurp or seem to be getting a leg up on Lizard King with this reply, there is also a little known law in Oklahoma and in some other states which says that they cannot put a hickey on your credit report until they have contacted you and demanded accounting of all your assetts and liabilities.

I've yet to see a collection agency obey this law, but it does exist and although none of us is likely to get dumb enough to simply up and tell them what our assetts and liabilities are without court order, we can holler because they didn't make the demand which the law says they must do.

Therefore they broke the law and unless they want to remove the illegal listing and pay you damages for illegally making a report against you, they can just bloody well take it off and forget about ever collecting the debt.

What you do in net effect is make them think you are going to turn them into a pi&#241ata

For those of you who may not know what a pi&#241ata is. It's a paper mache replica of a man or animal such as Mickey Mouse, a donkey, Superman or whatever and it's filled with candy. Two adults tie a long rope to the pi&#241ata and climb up on the roof of the house and some other high location and lower the pi&#241ata almost to ground level. A small child is given a long stick and placed in front of the pi&#241ata so they can see it. Then they are blindfolded and the two adults, one at each end of the rope bobs the pi&#241ata up and down and the child tries to beat the stuffing(candy, sweets) out of it. The child is given a few swipes and the next child is brought up before the now lowered pi&#241ata and he takes his turn beating the stuffing out of the pi&#241ata until it breaks open spewing all it's contents out on the ground for the kiddies attending the birthday party to gobble up.

So, the whole idea is to tun the collection agencies into pi&#241atas.

(LOL)

No matter how bright and sharp or how smart and careful they are to do things the right way, there is always another law out there they end up breaking sooner or later. You don't have to be a lawyer to turn them all into pi&#241atas. All you have to have is a checklist of all the most common laws, FDCPA, FCRA, FTA, UCC, state consumer protection laws rules of civil procedure, Federal rules of civil procedure at your fingertips and get a good grasp on lots of them and you too can enjoy your own party beating the stuffing out of your next pi&#241ata!

They never fail to break some law or other. But then, on the other hand, who don't?

 

Would you, please, copy and paste the wording in the law to which you refer?

Is it in this subsection: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 ?

 

All:
I disagree with this author, and with sound reason. Debt pertinent laws were never intended to disadvantage the collection of money, nor be abused by the well meaning but sorely misinformed. To engage such conduct is risky, posing more of a threat against the misuser than â??piñata.â? Take for example the intent of Congress by enacting FDCPA (to read the whole section CLICK HERE):

• 15 USC 1692
  (e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

Correspondingly, §813(a)(3) of the Act provides that: â?On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs. (CLICK HERE to read the whole section.)

In addition, consider how the courts are instructed (by CONGRESSIONAL mandate) to determine the extent of debt collector liability (within the same section as above):

• FDCPA §813(b)(1):
  In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors -- in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentionalâ?¦

Lastly, feast your eyes on the follow subsection of the same cite:

• FDCPA §813(c):
  A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this title if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

Consumers desiring to mend credit woes should take great care in applying the tactics proposed by the above author. Whereas before grabbing the tail of what one THINKS is a puszy, make certain itâ??s not a tiger! Let aloneâ?¦ A â??piñataâ? with teeth!

 

Feasting ones eyes

And I must also respectfully with at least some of the rebuttals.

For instance:

IF the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional IF is a mighty big word both in and out of court. The first conjecture ejaculated by Anthony is that an action is actually going to be brought before a court of law in the first place.

I've dealt with an extremely large number of collection agencies and I have yet to end up in front of any bar looking up at any judge of any size, type, or discription. I have yet to have any client who has ever went to court that I know of because he used any of the ideas that I have suggested to him. That most definitely will change at some point in time for the very simple reason that if you are going to play with fire, you had best be ready to withstand the heat. If it's going to go to court one way or the other, then it is not a wise plan of action to be there lastest with the leastest. But more to the point of whether or not an action will be brought or not is whether or not it will be brought under FDCPA. Although FTC law might be the grounds for the action, the actual case will not be filed with the FTC itself.

Be that as it may, how would a collection agency prove that it was an unintentional oversight if they failed to send the debtor any FTC required notice of acceptance of dispute after receipt of validation letter, failed to respoind in a timely fashion generally accepted as being 30 days, and furthermore admitted in writing that the debt was never owed by the debtor in the first place and had placed a false report of indebtedness on the victim's credit reports and had certified to the credit bureaus that their report was true and correct?????? Can they logically and believeably state to a court of law and a jury of their peers that a whole cacophony of errors, whatever they may be, was purely unintentional or for that matter had in fact any such thing as a maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error????

Anthony's earlier peals of laughter at the mere suggestion that any modern day collection agency would even dream of committion such "atrocities" not withstanding, it happens more often than not that collection agencies get sloppy, do all manner of things that are illegal as a matter of course. The reason that these "attrocities" and abuses occur is because they have the idea that all debtors are dumb, stupid, ignorant and have not the sense to walk and chew gum at the same time. They do it simply because they can and because the vast majority of debtors will not fight back, will not stand up for their rights, do not have the foggiest idea what the FDCPA is, what are the pruposes and duties of the FTC or the FDCPA or any other laws.

With the notable exception of Se&#421or Anthony, breathes there a man or a woman in this or any other such forum who has not at one time or another felt abused by credit bureaus and/or collection agencies, knew that they were being bamboozled, bulldozed, pettifogged, lied to and abused by bill collectors such as our learned Se&#241or? Well, there indeed may be such a lucky person, but if so, they are about as rare as monkeys at the North Pole.

While our noble Se&#241 may be quite correct in his LEGAL opinion here, he is only correct in the rare event that a debt collector would chose to go to a jury trial and use arguments like "It only happened just this once, your Honor" or "We maintain strict procedures to be sure these things never happen, your Honor therefore the plaintiff must surely be lying to the court" in order to defend himself.

In the real world, debt collectors are no more anxious to go pay high priced lawyers to defend themselves when free or nearly free alternatives are made available by the potential plaintiff who is in actuality not interested in sueing anybody in the first place.

Ivory tower legal theories, quotes and other such rhetoric do have their place, but in the practical world where the rubber meets the road everyday, people look for easier ways out of their predicaments which don't give them headaches trying to figure out all that legal mumbo-jumbo and gobbledegook.

If a game of bluff poker brings home the bacon, why go out and kill the hog?

 

Could one of you guys address this?

I don't see anything that forces collectors to validate after the initial thirty days. What am I missing? Like-- you can request a validation once a week?

 

And again:

Nobody cares about the whole section! We've already had the whole section thrown at us or we would not be here looking for practical, viable answers that will get the job done.

We all know that courts make findings, but our findings are that we usually find better things in an outhouse than we do a courthouse. Any old time. Now then, if you find us a law that it's illegal for a consumer to THREATEN to seek legal counsel for POSSIBLE redress of grieveiances and wrongs allegedly committed by another, then we'd like to hear about that.

ON FINDING BY THE COURT, don't hold no water because first of all the court is likely to have one helluva time even finding US if we got anything to say about it.

All that fancy &#167 &#182 &#169 &#174 &#122,&#153 stuff is totally meaningless because we don't plan on wearing any of them dirty T-shirts anyway. All we are going to do is make believers out of them.

Let's start talking real life around here, not some ivory tower gobbledegook

 

Greg:

I've actually seen some people do just exactly that.

Send them a validation letter and when they didn't get an answer in a week or so send them another and another until the collection agency wouldn't even accept any more of their silly validation letters cuz they already had a library full of them.

Taint funny! Actually does happen.

 

I'd sure have to agree with that because the above author obviously thinks the world revolves around a courtroom, a judge and a library full of lawbooks he thinks that only bill collectors, lawyers and their ilk can understand. But what's really funny is the look on their smug faces when you come up with some obscure law they never heard of.

Whereas before grabbing the tail of what one THINKS is a puszy watch your language, there feller. There's ladies in this forum , make certain itâ??s not a tiger! Let aloneâ?¦ A â??piñataâ? with teeth!

A pi&#241ata with teeth? Sure you ain't thinkin about pirahanna? (LOL)

One thing I gotta say for you is that you sure are great at dazzling people with your brilliance. I don't know about anybody else, but as far as I am concerned all you are doing is leaving them totally baffled for the simple reason nobody wants to go to court anyway.

They all know they get far better relief in the outhouse than they do in the courthouse in the first place, so the average person and the average bill collector alike try to stay out of them places if they can.

Only you and the legal beagles seem to think that all the answers in life are to be found in some ten mile high stack of books.

And the average bill collector don't even run around filing lawsuits on people. He gets him some lawyer to do that for him.

Best advice I got is that if you want to know all them laws and what they mean is to just forget about all them law books. They don't mean anything anyway unless you are looking at the ANNOTATED statutes. That's were the real law is as well as what the courts have ruled. There isn't a law in this land that carries any weight whatever until it's been ruled on by a judge, and most of the time several of them coming up with the same answer to the same question about the same situation. So see what the judges have had to say and then maybe you know something. After all, if you can't rely on what several judges have had to say about the law, what can you rely on, Anthony maybe??????

Congress and legislatures can write all the laws they want, but they don't mean a stinking thing until they have been ruled on by a court of higher authority.

 

Now then, let's take leave of the ivory tower set and start looking at what the courts have said.
That's what's important.

FDCPA provides a list of unfair or unconscionable collection means which are patterned after the FTC Act and are prohibited. Under the FDCPA, courts generally have construed â??unfairnessâ? to preclude practices that offend public policy, are immoral or oppressive, or cause substantial injury. For instance, collectors may not collect more than is legally owed or any amount that is not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law; they may not solicit, accept or deposit postdated checks; cause charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true purpose of the communication, including collect telephone calls and telegram fees; repossess or threaten repossession when there is no right or intent to repossess, or when the property is exempt from repossession; use a postcard to communicate with a consumer regarding a debt; or include language and/or symbols on envelopes used for collection except for the collectorâ??s address and name-if the name does not indicate the collectorâ??s business.
Furthermore, the FDCPA provides explicit consumer rights including the right to stop the collection and to have the debt verified. A debt collector is required to stop its routine collection efforts upon receiving either a written request from a consumer to cease collection efforts or a written refusal to pay the debt.

The collector may, however, advise the consumer that the collection efforts are being ceased, that the collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies that are ordinarily invoked, or notify the consumer that the collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy. The FDCPA also gives consumers the right to obtain verification of a debt from the collector, and it regulates the content, placement and provision of the validation notice in order to assure that the notice is provided in a manner that effectively communicates its contents to the least-sophisticated of consumers.

Other consumer rights include applying payments in accordance with the consumerâ??s directions when multiple debts are owed, and not bringing the suit in an inconvenient forum.
-------------------------------
Now then, let's see about this one folks
--------------------------------
Even though the list of potential violations seems overwhelming, debt collectors may take some comfort in knowing that they may have a complete defense for unintentional violations resulting from â??bona fide errorâ?. The FDCPA states:

A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this title if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid any such error.
To establish a defense under this provision, a debt collector will have to plead and prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

â?¢ The error was unintentional;
â?¢ The error was made in good faith;
â?¢ The error resulted from a clerical mistake, not a mistaken interpretation of law; and
â?¢ The collector maintained procedures reasonably adopted to check for and avoid such errors.
----------------------------------
You see the twist here, folks??
Anthony would have us believe that the FDCPA is full of "teeth" that we had better look out for so we don't bite off more than we can chew. When we look at it from another angle, the debt colletor who violated the law is going to have a whole lot of proving to do to establish such a defense. When the truth is out, we can readily see that it's not a ready hammer that the debt collector can use to hammer us back with at all.

 

Federal Trade Commission Debt Collection Law:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also is active in bringing administrative action against debt collectors using â??unfair or deceptive acts or practicesâ? prohibited by the FTC Act. Many of the practices that have been considered unfair or deceptive in the FTC Act parallel the prohibitions listed by the FDCPA. The following examples of debt-collection abuses have been found to violate the FTC Act and to warrant FTC cease and desist orders prohibiting future similar deception or unfair practices:

1. Threats misrepresenting a collectorâ??s intention to take legal action. Such threats of legal action violate the FTC Act if they are deceptive;

2. Sending dunning letters which simulate the appearance of telegrams because such letters misrepresent the nature, importance, cost, purpose and urgency of the communication;

3. Misrepresenting the existence of a debt or the amount due;

4. Using harassing or abusive telephone calls or letters; WHAAAAAATTTTTTT???? OH THEY DON'T DO SUCH THINGS EH? YOU MEAN THE FTC DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU BUST A GUT LAUGHING OVER???? HOW STRANGE!!!!

5. Contacting or threatening to contact third parties;

6. Filing collection suits in courts distant from the consumerâ??s residence;

7. Misrepresenting the adverse impact of nonpayment upon a consumerâ??s credit worthiness;

8. Misrepresenting a fictitious collection agency as an entity separate from the collector;

9. Misrepresenting that a claim has been or will be transferred to an attorney or separate department of a collector;

10. Misrepresenting a collectorâ?? s affiliation with the government;

11. Using subterfuge to obtain a consumerâ??s current address or place of
employment;

12. Collection letters that simulate legal process; and

13. Advertising â??easy creditâ? while using rigorous collection methods against
delinquent consumers.

AWWWWW, COME ON NOW FTC! Anthony says them bill collectors don't do such things! Ya gotta believe El Se&#241or now. He wouldn't say anything wrong! Ya just gotta believe him!
GIVE HIM A BREAK! PURDDY PLEZZZZZE???? &#191POR FAVOR? TEN MISERICORDIA!!!!

 

Wading Through The Mire

All:
Well, unfortunately, irrespective the lengthy milti-postings of disjointed and histrionic rhetoric? I still respectfully disagree. While the author claims to have â??dealt with an extremely large number of collection agencies,â? he misunderstands my point. One based on not only the law, but continual collection industry updates, and going on 20 years of â??practicalâ? â??real-worldâ? experience (in the debt collection business)! I have forgotten more about the industry, than some will ever know (no brag, just the way it is).

The percentage of collectors who purposefully break the law is actually quite low, in relative comparison to those that donâ??t. To presuppose that one can â??BLUFFâ? a collection entity into submission is based on amateurish notions of probable surrender. Far more than simple face-value issues must be considered, before such moves are entertained.

If a collection entity has violated some law, then it behooves the collector to submit. But if not then the consumer must take action, yet few have the financial resources or skill to do so. The collector need only proceed with business as usual, which may entail some adverse action against the consumer. Please take my word for it, if a collector has leverage and is pushed inappropriately; he only need stand firm.

Granted some would argue that â??free or nearly free alternativesâ? are available to consumers, yet this concept is also flawed. Consumer advocate lawyers are no different than ones for hire. Cases must be reviewed for merit and rejected if substantial grounds are lacking. Additionally, it truly ISNâ??T all that â??rareâ? for a collection entity to call a consumer's bluff â?? and go toward trial â?? when itâ??s done nothing wrong.

I do not take issue with the general concept promoted, only the delusions and repeated contradictions. On one hand the author purports to use the law in such a way as to make the opposition yield, and on the other ridicules application of the very legal system he claims is a weapon. This evidences an extreme state of confusion.

So I encourage you, the reader, to thoroughly examine the previous posts (and the ranting to come). Make your judgments and decisions based on actual (long-term) experience or hysteria, the choice is yours. Whereas (from a creditorâ??s perspective), staring down the barrel of a gun is NEVER dangerousâ?¦ When one knows itâ??s a toy.

 

In order to codify and supplement the cases, the FTC has implemented informal guides
against debt-collection deception. The guides are not self-enforcing but require case-by-case action by the FTC if businesses do not voluntarily comply. Unlike the FDCPA, the Guides are meant to apply to both creditors, including finance companies, retailers, and others within the FTCâ??s jurisdiction, as well as collection agencies. In addition the Guides apply to the collection of business debts as well as consumer debts. The Guides contain the following requirements and prohibitions:

1. Conspicuous disclosure of a communicationâ??s purpose of collecting or obtaining information;

2. Prohibition against creating a false impression of a connection with a government agency;

3. Prohibiting the use of a name or other language falsely creating the impression that a firm is a credit bureau;

4. Prohibiting the use of a name, title, or other language creating the false impression that a firm is a collection agency;

5. Prohibiting, generally, misrepresentations regarding the services rendered by a collection agency in order to protect the original creditors.

WOW! Six more things them nice bill collectors been doing to us huh? I though them fellers was church choir boys and girls. Butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. I really believed what Anthony was claiming. (NOT)

In addition to the Guides, the FTC Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Credit Practices prohibits creditors from the following six practices:

1. Confessions of judgment, cognovits and other waivers of the right to notice; and

2. The debtorâ??s waiver of protections concerning property exempt from attachment or execution, such as waiver of a homestead exemption (this provision does not prohibit security interests in exempt property);

3. Assignment of wages or other earnings before judgment;

4. Non-purchase money security interests in household goods, but creditors can still take security interests in works of art, items acquired as antiques, jewelry (except wedding rings), and electronic entertainment equipment (except one television and one radio);

Well how about that, Sports Fans??? Even been demanding people give up their wedding rings??? WOW! Now that would take a low down skunk.

5. Pyramiding late charges by assessing more than one delinquency charge for one late payment (pyramiding late charges for a missed payment is not prohibited); and

6. The failure to provide cosigners with a specified warning indicating the potential
obligations of a cosigner..........

OHHHHHH! NOW we find out the truth once again. We don't go to the FTC like Anthony indicated he would have us believe??? We go to State Court to get our TS cards punched.
STRANGE! Ain't that what I just said in a previous post? Don't care about no FTC court???
Ain't got nothin to do with it! Ya gotta go to state courts folks.

Contrary to the FDCPA, there generally is no direct private right-of-action for a violation
of an FTC Rule. A consumer can, however, challenge an FTC Credit Practices Rule violation under a state unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) statute that prohibits â??unfairâ?, â??deceptiveâ? and/or â??unconscionableâ? practices. Moreover, a violation of an FTC rule may be a per se state UDAP violation.

The laws governing debt collection can be quite complex. Businesses involved in debt collection, and creditors who are considering assigning accounts, should consider the implications of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Trade Commissionâ??s Debt Collection Laws, as well as applicable state law.

Seems that's exactly what I just said before.

Looks a little different that way, don't it folks??
Hey! Anthony!!!!!!!!!!!!! What was that you almost died laughing over?? Something about maybe they used to do that stuff 30 years ago but nobody does those things anymore??? Would you care to explain to the good folks just why it might be that FTC is filing cease and desist orders against them poor collection agencies if they don't do no wrong??

HUH? HUH? Why would they do that? They pickin on them poor fellers or something????
Yeah, I know. It's the nasty government. If we had real freedom the bill collectors could just do like they please. Things gittin real bad around here, aint' they Anthony???


|

 

AGREED!

Hmmâ?¦ Judging by the incoherent multi-posts, at last, we finally agree on something.