Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bearflag70

Understanding Failure to Properly Validate

Recommended Posts

Assume a CA failed to "properly" validate within 30 days of the validation letter. What happens then?

 

From what I am gathering, the CA must stop all collection efforts and all credit reporting TLs must be deleted ... UNTIL the CA validates ... meaning the CA may validate even after the 30 days is up, and may then resume collection efforts. Is that right?

 

In other words, failure to validate in 30 days does not negate the alleged debt, it just "stays" all collection activity and gives the consumer the right to request TL deletion from the CRA until CA validation actually occurs, and validation could theoretically occur at any time from the date of the "Validation #1" letter up until the day the SOL expires, right?

 

Also, I have seen "Validation #2" letters that basically say the CA blew it on proper validation in 30 days, but then the letter gives the CA 10 or 15 more days to validate. Why give them more time? They have 30 days to validate and that's it, right? Why don't the Validation #2 letters on this borad just say something like, "You had 30 days and you blew it by only giving me a silly printout. Now, delete my tradelines and leave me alone forever. THE END."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to CreditBoards! We hope that you find what you're looking for here.Some helpful tips:

  • Your post may not get a reply right away. Don't be discouraged, this is a very busy board. If it falls off of the first page, feel free to reply to your post yourself, with the word *bump* in the text. This will *bump* your post back up to the top of the board.
  • If you haven't yet, take a peek at out Newbies Section. Everything that you need to know is in that forum, for the most part! It's a lot of reading, we know, but this credit stuff can have a steep learning curve. In no time, you'll be posting like the pros!
  • If you find that someone is discourteous to you, use the REPORT button at the bottom of every post - that will ensure that a moderator or admin looks at the post and decides if it is against the TOS.
  • Off -topic posts should go in the General Forum.

Again, welcome to the CreditBoards family! CB Admin: LKH, Pam, radi8, breezeCB Mods: cotterpin, CargoJon, CramitCCCA's, fla-tan, MarvBear, psp, pryan67Forum Leads: TeeSharice, orangecrush, Neen and Four20Nik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only '30-days' that comes into play on the federal level is the rights preserved by disputing within the original 30 days. There is no requirement that a response come. ONLY if a dispute is made in that window must collection activity cease, but that does not include any requirement to delete the tradeline.

 

The rules change somewhat when you move to the State laws...in some states, the dispute can be made at any time and a timeline exists in which a response must be forthcoming OR the tradeline must be modified as requested by the consumer.

 

If an FDCPA dispute is made AFTER the 30-day window, there is no requirement to cease collection activity. They need only mark the account as being in dispute.

 

There are lots of letters floating around with arbitrary deadlines that have no basis in the law or controlling caselaw...you need to understand WHAT you are doing and WHY you are doing it before ANY letter is ever sent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assume a CA failed to "properly" validate within 30 days of the validation letter. What happens then?

 

From what I am gathering, the CA must stop all collection efforts and all credit reporting TLs must be deleted ... UNTIL the CA validates ... meaning the CA may validate even after the 30 days is up, and may then resume collection efforts. Is that right?

 

In other words, failure to validate in 30 days does not negate the alleged debt, it just "stays" all collection activity and gives the consumer the right to request TL deletion from the CRA until CA validation actually occurs, and validation could theoretically occur at any time from the date of the "Validation #1" letter up until the day the SOL expires, right?

 

Also, I have seen "Validation #2" letters that basically say the CA blew it on proper validation in 30 days, but then the letter gives the CA 10 or 15 more days to validate. Why give them more time? They have 30 days to validate and that's it, right? Why don't the Validation #2 letters on this borad just say something like, "You had 30 days and you blew it by only giving me a silly printout. Now, delete my tradelines and leave me alone forever. THE END."

 

I am not sure, but any others may chime in, but my understanding is they don't even have to operate on a 30 day timetable to validate, but they just have to cease collection activity until they do if they so choose.

 

I had a similar situation and I sent a couple of DV requests. The reason in doing so is if it had to go to court then I had a paper trail where I was trying to get validation that the debt was legitimate and the debt belonged to me. I guess the extra letters is just to add ammo to your arsenal should you have to go to court to resolve the issue, but depending on who you are dealing with I have seen that sometimes by the 2nd or 3rd letter they just delete it if they can't substantiate with valid proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like you are correct, centex. The FDCPA states the consumer may dispute the debt within 30 days of the initial communication from the CA, and the CA must then cease all collection efforts until CA sends validation to the consumer (at any time - no deadline). So collection efforts must stop until validation occurs, but validation may occur at any time after the validation request.

 

15 USC 1592g [paraphrased]

 

If the consumer [requests validation] within the thirty-day period [from the date of the initial communication from the debt collector], [then] the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt . . . until the debt collector [mails validation to the consumer].

 

So, if I'm not mistaken, under FDCPA, once the CA receives a validation request (CMRRR), the consumer may immediately request deletion of the TL from the CR ... no need to wait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are lots of letters floating around with arbitrary deadlines that have no basis in the law or controlling caselaw...you need to understand WHAT you are doing and WHY you are doing it before ANY letter is ever sent...

 

 

+1 :lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I'm not mistaken, under FDCPA, once the CA receives a validation request (CMRRR), the consumer may immediately request deletion of the TL from the CR ... no need to wait?

 

 

Unless I did it wrong, this doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a good validation letter should probably basically say the following (no deadlines cited):

 

1. I dispute the alleged debt is valid and enforceable against me.

 

2. I received your correspondence regarding this alleged debt on DATE.

 

3. I hereby request you validate the alleged debt pursuant to applicable fair debt collection laws. Valdiation shall include X, Y, and Z.

 

4. Until you provide me proper validation, please delete all references to this alleged debt from my credit report through all credit reporting agencies.

 

5. Until you provide me proper validation, please cease and desist all collection efforts and activities against me.

 

If you get no response in about 30 days (not a hard deadline), then pull a credit report to verfiy deletion. If it's not deleted, then write the CRAs to request deletion with a copy of your validation letter and proof of CMRRR of the validation letter to the CA.

 

If you get a response but validation is less than adequate, then check the credit report and request deletion through the CRAs, as above, and write a follow up letter to the CA stating the following:

 

1. I continue to dispute the alleged debt is valid and enforceable against me.

 

2. I am in receipt of your attempted validation; however, your attempted validation is legally insufficient.

 

3. Until you provide me proper validation, please delete all references to this alleged debt from my credit report through all credit reporting agencies.

 

4. Until you provide me proper validation, please cease and desist all collection efforts and activities against me.

 

[5. If there was no CRA deletion by the CA, then say something like this: You have failed to delete the applicable tradelines from my credit report in response to my validation request, as required by fair debt collection law and credit reporting laws. Please be advised that further violations, including verification of the alleged debt with a CRA, could result in legal action against you.]

 

How does that sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing that requires them to delete just because you have a pending dispute. If you dispute within the initial 30 day window, they just cannot update the TL without it being considered continued collection activity.

 

There are some States that require a modification as directed/requested by the consumer at the expiry of the 30 days if the statutory requirement has not been satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing that requires them to delete just because you have a pending dispute. If you dispute within the initial 30 day window, they just cannot update the TL without it being considered continued collection activity.

 

There are some States that require a modification as directed/requested by the consumer at the expiry of the 30 days if the statutory requirement has not been satisfied.

 

Ah. So the validation letter above is ok, except for the delete references which should be removed, unless I am in a "Delete State"?

 

Do you know if California is a "Delete State"?

 

Thanks so much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not in a state that requires deletion as part of the validation process (through CAs), then you can still try deletion through the CRA re-investigation process, which has a 30-day window. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand this FTC opinion correctly, it describes what a CA must do with a TL after receipt of a validation request:

 

(1) If the CA has reported the item to the CRA BEFORE its receipt of the validation letter, then the CA must report the item to the CRA as DISPUTED.

 

(2) If the CA has not yet reported the item to the CRA before its receipt of the validation letter, then the CRA cannot report it until it properly validates the debt to the consumer

 

FTC OPINION - http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

 

Q: "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?"

 

A: As you know, Section 1692g(:) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a flow chart of the validation/verification summary I got from a link on this board:

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/de...low_large.shtml

 

Please look at the part that talks about VALIDATION. It provides two time frames of 30 days after the initial validation request and another 15 days after a second validation request. I assume those dates are arbitrary and not based upon FDCPA. (?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are not in a state that requires deletion as part of the validation process (through CAs), then you can still try deletion through the CRA re-investigation process, which has a 30-day window. Right?

 

you can dispute it anytime up until they call if frivolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am offering no opinion on the letter other than to say it is not one that I would use. My thoughts on letters and suggested content, however, are sprinkled throughout the site. Although many have disagreed with my approach, there are some who have finally come to see the light as to why I took the approaches I did when I had to deal with third-party entities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep in mind that reporting is considered collection activity...

 

so if they haven't reported...then they do after receiving a timely DV...it's a violation of FCRA and FDCPA

 

 

if they HAVE already reported..then receive the timely DV...they must report it as "in dispute"....but they can't update or verify the TL...as that would be collection activity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines