VALIDATION OR NOT?

[DonJuan]

I had two Arrow account that were sent to a law office. I did a DV and it took them 5 months to get back to me with some paper work. The sent me copies of my monthly statements for the credit card account. Is this proper validation or not. If so then what are my next steps. One account is for $4200 and the other is $1800. Should i try and settle? PFD? I can pay the $1800 in full if need be. any suggestions?

[centex]

Although I am sure that others will disagree, I'd opine that if they provided documents that demonstrate any sort of payment history AND if the most recent statement matches the amount they are attempting to collect, you may have a tough row to hoe in court. Payment history would be a toughie to overcome unless you are claiming that your last payment was a PIF.

 

However, by the time an account has moved to the third-party arena, the last statement rarely matches the amount being sought...

[ranger67]

NO that is not validation. Validation is proving that it is yours. ie... Signiture on contract... every payment and credit to the account from begining....plus do the CA have the right to collect it and so on. There are some good posts in here about what validation consists of. One of the most important things about validation is what would a judge say about it in court.

 

 

 

I could just pick your name out of a phonebook and make some monthly statements up and send to you saying you owe me money. So do you think that would hold up in court?

[joshbgosh]

NO that is not validation. Validation is proving that it is yours. ie... Signiture on contract... every payment and credit to the account from begining....plus do the CA have the right to collect it and so on. There are some good posts in here about what validation consists of. One of the most important things about validation is what would a judge say about it in court.

 

 

 

I could just pick your name out of a phonebook and make some monthly statements up and send to you saying you owe me money. So do you think that would hold up in court?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A signiture is not required...but yes, they do have to prove they have the right to collect.

 

They do not HAVE to show COMPLETE payment history from the time the account was opened, but they do need to show how they arrived at the amount they are collecting on, fees, interest, etc.

[rigirl]

NO that is not validation. Validation is proving that it is yours. ie... Signiture on contract... every payment and credit to the account from begining....plus do the CA have the right to collect it and so on. There are some good posts in here about what validation consists of. One of the most important things about validation is what would a judge say about it in court.

 

 

 

I could just pick your name out of a phonebook and make some monthly statements up and send to you saying you owe me money. So do you think that would hold up in court?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A signiture is not required...but yes, they do have to prove they have the right to collect.

 

They do not HAVE to show COMPLETE payment history from the time the account was opened, but they do need to show how they arrived at the amount they are collecting on, fees, interest, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats what I was thinking if they provide enough information in those statements that show it is yours and the amount they are trying to collect. I just try to always look at validation as what would a judge say about this if he saw it and then looked and me and said Is this yours? I know the chances of things ending up in court are ultra slim but thats just how I look at it. Alot of places dont get your signature to open accounts in the first place.

[irritated]

One of the most important things about validation is what would a judge say about it in court.

 

Yes, and what one judge might consider validation the next very well wont. It is subjective and open to interpretation.

 

In fact, and this is sure to open up a can of worms, but some courts in the past have ruled that "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt."

[ranger67]

let me get this straight. So they don't have to show a contract saying that you are responsible for the debt? Thats just not right.

 

I'm not saying your not right about it but saying they shouldn't be able to do that.

[rigirl]

Alot of it is subject to the judges interpretation of the law.

[joshbgosh]

let me get this straight. So they don't have to show a contract saying that you are responsible for the debt? Thats just not right.

 

I'm not saying your not right about it but saying they shouldn't be able to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

nope, they don't the law doesn't say they have to and no case law supports them having to.

[joshbgosh]

YOu can still use it to try to get them to delete, some don't know the law to well and may very well believe what you are telling them.

 

But as the PP's said...this is all in the eyes of the judge. IMHO, the last statement would not prove to a judge that the debt is yours, anyone could have opened something up in your name. The CA does have to prove they have the right to collect.

[pryan67]

One of the most important things about validation is what would a judge say about it in court.

 

Yes, and what one judge might consider validation the next very well wont. It is subjective and open to interpretation.

 

In fact, and this is sure to open up a can of worms, but some courts in the past have ruled that "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

this is 100% correct...in ONE case...that has NOTHING to do with validation...they DID say that...*opening the worms now*

 

 

that's the Chaudry case...and as we all know (or SHOULD know), it doesn't deal with validation.

 

 

Chaudry asked for one specific piece of information...and was given it...so it was responsive to the consumer's request...AFTER the fact, Chaudry said that he wanted other information...and the judge said no way...

 

TOTALLY different...

[joshbgosh]

There are FTC opinion letters about CA's having to prove they own or have the right to collect on the debt.

 

There is caselaw saying that CA's must show complete history...but as we all know judges don't have to follow these things they can decide for themselves, but they do help our case.

[ranger67]

Ok say I own a business and I want to start scamming people.So I just start sending out invoices to people and if they don't pay it I can turn it in to the bureaus. Since I know that most people are going to pay as they don't want it on their reports. Well someone decides I'm not paying this guy I don't owe money to and decides to take me to court but I have the Blank unsigned contract and the monthly invoices to show to the judge.

 

 

 

So now what do you think would happen in a situation like this? We all know that it is wrong. But seriously what would happen?

[centex]

Ok say I own a business and I want to start scamming people.So I just start sending out invoices to people and if they don't pay it I can turn it in to the bureaus. Since I know that most people are going to pay as they don't want it on their reports. Well someone decides I'm not paying this guy I don't owe money to and decides to take me to court but I have the Blank unsigned contract and the monthly invoices to show to the judge.

 

 

 

So now what do you think would happen in a situation like this? We all know that it is wrong. But seriously what would happen?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And what are you offering up to show some semblance of a payment history? I had a billing issue where a final payment did not post. In addition to statements, I also received imaged copies of prior checks sent by me for payment...the only missing piece of the equation was the front and back that I got from my bank.

 

If a plaintiff goes into court and has a series of statements and can demonstrate a history of payment by defendant, then a judge is going to find their claim to pretty damned compelling. You may kick and scream that it is not sufficient, but in the end, you have to weigh everything in the same light as would a sitting judge.

 

The notion of a signed contract being required is rather farcical as it does nothing to demonstrate what is owed. The only time that it might be required to produce anything associated with an account having been opened is in the true instance of someone claiming "not mine"- you know, the real instances of ID Theft/Fraud, not the contrived claims made by some.

[Pavlov]

If a plaintiff goes into court and has a series of statements and can demonstrate a history of payment by defendant, then a judge is going to find their claim to pretty damned compelling.  You may kick and scream that it is not sufficient, but in the end, you have to weigh everything in the same light as would a sitting judge.

 

The notion of a signed contract being required is rather farcical as it does nothing to demonstrate what is owed.  The only time that it might be required to produce anything associated with an account having been opened is in the true instance of someone claiming "not mine"- you know, the real instances of ID Theft/Fraud, not the contrived claims made by some.

 

But if the payments cannot be proven to have been made by the same person, that person defending the charges as NOT MINE, or no knowledge of the account, can STILL claim the payment history proves nothing. How do I know those payments were not made by Martha Stewart?

[centex]

If a plaintiff goes into court and has a series of statements and can demonstrate a history of payment by defendant, then a judge is going to find their claim to pretty damned compelling.  You may kick and scream that it is not sufficient, but in the end, you have to weigh everything in the same light as would a sitting judge.

 

The notion of a signed contract being required is rather farcical as it does nothing to demonstrate what is owed.  The only time that it might be required to produce anything associated with an account having been opened is in the true instance of someone claiming "not mine"- you know, the real instances of ID Theft/Fraud, not the contrived claims made by some.

 

But if the payments cannot be proven to have been made by the same person, that person defending the charges as NOT MINE, or no knowledge of the account, can STILL claim the payment history proves nothing. How do I know those payments were not made by Martha Stewart?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then I sincerely hope you take those imaged checks to both your bank and to local law enforcement to file for the felonious conduct. The lengths to which some will go to stick their head in the sand will never cease to amaze me...

[Pavlov]

Then I sincerely hope you take those imaged checks to both your bank and to local law enforcement to file for the felonious conduct.  The lengths to which some will go to stick their head in the sand will never cease to amaze me...

 

This was a hypothetical scenario to prove a point about the " proof ", which still would not prove the account was really the person whom the complaint was filed against.

 

LOL!

[keepmine]

Some of you guys are going to learn a hard {and lets hope it's a hypothetical} lesson. You can make any sort of claim you please-the problem is getting anyone to believe you.

If someone dumps a few dozen monthly statements on a judges desk, what are you going to do if he ask if you ever contested them, filed an ID theft complaint,etc.?

You're very quickly going to learn a term called, "account stated".

As to the situation where someone sends out dummy statements. Expect the majority of the people who receive one to make a beeline to the local D.A. or, the U.S.Postal Inspectors if they believe the demand is bogus. That's the normal reaction of people who don't owe money and won't give in to extortion.

I'm not saying never demand validation. Just be prepared on the off chance that someone will have some competent evidence that'll stand up in front of a judge. Be realistic about what is presented and don't go off on some silly BS "but what if" tangent.

[DonJuan]

The account statements were the last statements before they were charged off. The amounts stated on the statements are 1000.00 less than what they are trying to collect. So I should dispuate or have them validate the amount owed?

[keepmine]

I think you've every right to demand an accurate accounting.

[Debt Guy]

PEOPLE -- go read the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act -- it does not define verification.

 

All this business about using the FDCPA to demand the CA prove this or prove that is an urban myth. It just is not so. Congress intended the FDCPA to prevent CAs from trying to collect against the wrong person. So long as the CA has reasonably ascertained they are seeking to collect from the right person, then they are in compliance. Only the court defines reasonable. What some internet wizard thinks is meaningless.

 

I think Chaudhry is a stupid court opinion and I think that the CAs misuse Chaudhry -- but the fact is that Chaudhry is not that far off in terms of demonstrating that the CA has complied with the letter of the FDCPA. It is entirely inadequate for any other purpose.

 

Now, once the CA has sued you, if you play your cards right, you have the right to conduct discovery. That is where you can require the CA to "prove" all sorts of stuff. But, you've got to know how to conduct discovery and you must follow the rules of your court.

 

You cannot conduct "discovery" through an FDCPA demand for validation.

 

If the CA shows the judge a stack of statements, the judge is going to look at you and say, "is this yours". You must then answer the question "yes" or "no". If you answer yes, then case closed and you lose. If you answer no, then the judge is going to scratch his head and ask you if you lived at the address on those statements. If you say yes, then he is going to want to know why you never said anything about all those statements coming to your address all those months. If you got all those statements and you did not scream "identity fraud" then your demand the creditor prove you signed the application and produce the original application -- well, it is not very persuasive to the judge because he will see that as legal maneuvering to avoid paying what you so obviously owe.

 

I have never yet seen a CA lose a case where they have a stack of statements to show the judge. Judges are by and large common-sense types.

 

The only way to get around this problem is to commit fraud (lie like a dog). "No, your honor, that is not me." "No, your honor, that is not my address." No, your honor, someone must have stolen those out of my mailbox on the 14th of every month for the past 3 years". "No, your honor, someone else must have made those minimum payments every month for the past three years." About this time, you better hope the CA does not cough-up an image of a charge slip with your signature.

 

If the debt is not yours, say so and don't back up an inch. You are the person that Congress intended to protect with the FDCPA. If the debt is yours, then the FDCPA is intended to protect your rights to the degree that the CA treats you with a minimum standard of respect and honesty (not much, perhaps, but some). The FDCPA is not intended to give you the opportunity to avoid your debt.

 

I know there will be a firestorm of people who will disagree with everything I have said here.

 

The reader should think about what makes sense in the real world -- not what they would like to hear.

[Pavlov]

Some of you guys are going to learn a hard {and lets hope it's a hypothetical} lesson. You can make any sort of claim you please-the problem is getting anyone to believe you.

If someone dumps a few dozen monthly statements on a judges desk, what are you going to do if he ask if you ever contested them, filed an ID theft complaint,etc.?

You're very quickly going to learn a term called, "account stated".

As to the situation where someone sends out dummy statements. Expect the majority of the people who receive one to make a beeline to the local D.A. or, the U.S.Postal Inspectors if they believe the demand is bogus. That's the normal reaction of people who don't owe money and won't give in to extortion.

I'm not saying never demand validation. Just be prepared on the off chance that someone will have some competent evidence that'll stand up in front of a judge. Be realistic about what is presented and don't go off on some silly BS "but what if" tangent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My personal experience is that the average CA has extremely limited information about the accounts for which they are collecting. Based on my experience, most CA's, probably 80-90% of those who send demand letters, do not have a fraction of the documentation mentioned as " Proof " to a judge.

 

My belief is that lists of accounts are sold from one CA to another, resulting in one CA after another ' trying their hand " at collecting on each account. The CA's gamble on consumer ignorance and CA threats with little real documentation. So this DEBT VALIDATION you sneer at is extremely effective in proving to the CA they have no solid documentation.

 

So sneer all you like, it is very effective in eliminating collection activities. It reminds me of the scientists who tell us that a bumblebee cannot fly, without bothering to watch them flittering away toward the next tree.

 

We have had many collectors wandering through these sites lately. A couple of the people on this thread seem like they are collectors as well. Just a hunch....

 

comments?

[keepmine]

Well, I'm not a collector.

Let me refer you to a couple of recent threads.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=67269

 

How would handle post 17?

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84377

 

Notice paragraph 5 where Discover provided every monthly statement from inception to chargeoff.

 

I'll agree that the older the chargeoff, the more unlikely it is that a ca does have a lot of proof. But, it does happen and there just comes a point when claims of not mine are just not believeable.

[Pavlov]

Well, I'm not a collector.

Let me refer you to a couple of recent threads.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=67269

 

How would handle post 17?

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84377

 

Notice paragraph 5 where Discover provided every monthly statement from inception to chargeoff.

 

I'll agree that the older the chargeoff, the more unlikely it is that a ca does have a lot of proof. But, it does happen and there just comes a point when claims of not mine are just not believeable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think we agree on more than you might suspect. Glad to know you are not a collector.

 

If Discover is making the claim you can bet they are going to have all the documentation they could ever want. However, when you look at the bulk of the validation letters which are sent to CA's, where an entirely different set of laws applies, then everything is going to be different. Do validation letters work for CA's and JDB's? Absolutely. Why? Because most all of them buy junk for pennies and recycle the same paper. Debt Validation letters work extremely well with CA's and JDB's.

 

But for OC's? Of course the laws are different, the original documentation is near perfect going back to the original application, etc.

 

So I think a lot of this mixed up communication is due to not differentiating between CA's and OC's, validation v verification.

 

Make sense?

[Debt Guy]

I should have been more clear.

 

Statements are typically provided by original creditors and collection agencies who are collecting for an original creditor. Once the debt has been sold, statements become very hard to obtain -- especially as the debt is older and older.

 

However, my comments about the purpose and intent of FDCPA remain unchanged.

 

PS -- I am not a collector -- was a senior executive for a large collection agency once but decided I did not like the way the business was headed -- so I left. I did not like how customers were treated and I just thought it was wrong to put so much pressure on a bunch of young kids to go out and hammer customers just so some Wall Street type would say nice things about your stock price.

 

Just because I am saying something you don't want to hear does not mean I am against you. Use my knowledge and experience as a tool.

 

Truth is truth even if it does not fit your goals. Some people drink deeply from the fountain of knowledge. Others merely gargle.