Misconceptions about validation...

[dixiedrifter]

It seems there is a lot of misconceptions about what a CA must do (or not do) when they recieve a validation/verification request.

 

Only when a CA recieves a verification (I'll be using this term as it is the term that appears in the FDCPA statutory language) request within 30 days of the intial communication must the CA cease all collection efforts until the CA has mailed said verification to the consumer.

 

If a verification letter is sent to the CA outside the 30 day verification window, then any continued collection efforts by the CA are NOT in violation.

 

Also, note that just because a verification request is sent to the CA after the 30 day window the consumer does not lose their right to dispute the debt, it simply means that they must find another cause of action to go after the CA to drag them into court.

 

Please make this a sticky.

[SassyinAz]

Part 2: http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Opinions/Opinions270.asp

 

Although the notice literally requires the debt collector to provide validation information, the Seventh Circuit has held that the debt collector does not violate the statute if it ceases all further collection activities without providing the information. Jang v. A. M. Miller & Assoc., Inc., 1996 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10883 (N.D.Ill., July 30, 1996), aff'd, 122 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 1997) ("When a collection agency cannot verify a debt, the statute allows the debt collector to cease all collection activities at that point without incurring any liability for the mistake"); Sambor v. Omnia Credit Services, Inc., 183 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1242 (D.Haw. 2002); Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1031-32 (6th Cir. 1992).

 

...without incurring any liability for the mistake are the keys words.

 

The same is true, outside of the 30-days, assuming of course there was an initial communication, as the FDCPA requires NO communication, the difference being at all times prior to a dispute of the debt's validity, there is no violation for the collection activities of the CA while they assumed the debt was valid.

 

Sassy

[lordnuke]

In response to "If a verification letter is sent to the CA outside the 30 day verification window, then any continued collection efforts by the CA are NOT in violation. "

 

How does the 30 day verification window get determined?

 

In my situation: CA has not been in contact w/ me, either by phone or mail. I see the item on my CR, and send them DV. Does this mean I've sent DV outside of my 30 day window?

 

If I'm way off, let me know. Now you've got me confused. :oops:

 

-Nuke

[LKH]

In response to "If a verification letter is sent to the CA outside the 30 day verification window, then any continued collection efforts by the CA are NOT in violation. "

 

How does the 30 day verification window get determined?

 

In my situation: CA has not been in contact w/ me, either by phone or mail. I see the item on my CR, and send them DV. Does this mean I've sent DV outside of my 30 day window?

 

If I'm way off, let me know. Now you've got me confused. :oops:

 

-Nuke

 

It's 30 days from the initial communication by the ca. If they never sent you a notice or never contacted you, then you are fine.

[munci98]

bump cause this thread is good.

[teenyyogini]

But what happens if you were asleep at the wheel and then a couple of YEARS go by and you discover a CA on your credit report. Do you send a CV anyway or do you just settle for a TL and pay up?

[Algo]

But what happens if you were asleep at the wheel and then a couple of YEARS go by    and you discover a CA on your credit report. Do you send a CV anyway or do you just settle for a TL and pay up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We generally call "verifying" with the CA, VALIDATION.

 

They are saying that the CA is in VIOLATION of the FDCPA if they contact you and you, WITHIN 30 days, ask for validation and they continue collection activity. Because you have asked within THAT specific 30 days after the INITIAL communication, they cannot do ANYTHING else until they have validated.

 

NOW. If you do not validate within the 30 day window the CA can still continue to collect because by default they are allowed to assume that the debt is valid.

 

NOW. If you are OUTSIDE of the 30 day window that I talked about above you can STILL ask for validation (DV). They STILL have to stop all collection activity against you until they validate, but they aren't in violation of the FDCPA for their EARLIER debt collection activities. They can still violate the FDCPA for collection activity AFTER you have asked for validation.

 

So if they have never contacted you, but it's on your report, then the 30 days have not even started yet.

[irritated]

So the debtor may dispute a debt at any time even after 30 days of initial contact by a CA. So in brief there are no time limits for disputing a debt.

 

The initial time mark (30 days) gives the CA the right to assume the debt is valid barring any debtor disputes, and gives them the go ahead to continue collection efforts without incurring any liability if it is not.

 

However, since there is no time limit a debtor could present a dispute after 4 years for example and the CA would have to cease all collection activity until they validated the account. If they can not validate the account they can no longer pursue collections.

 

As many of you now know I whole heartedly agree this … “it seems there is a lot of misconceptions about what a CA must do (or not do) when they recieve a validation/verification request.” ... and as for those misconceptions the search continues

[Pavlov]

I don't think the answer to this question is buried within this thread, so I am going to risk castigation by asking it outright:

 

I get my CR from EXP, lets say. On it I have a listing from a CA for a $200 bill from Emergency Room(the OC). This account is from 2001, so for argument's sake it is well within SOL.

 

The CA has an obligation to validate, no matter what the time frame. But if I demanded a validation from that CA back in 2003, and received an response, does that mean the same CA is not obligated to send me another? I am much more familiar with the credit rules now than before, so lets say I want to get it off using the 1-2 punch. Can the CA, two years after the 2003 letter they sent me, just tell me " No, we sent that to you already?" Or are they required to continue to try to satisfy me in that request for the holy grail, the " validation"?

[Gryffindor]

If they didn't provide you with proper validation the first time, then go with DV #2. Everyone seems to be forgetting that a CA never has to provide you with validation - ever. They just can't continue collection attempts until they provide it.

[Pavlov]

If they didn't provide you with proper validation the first time, then go with DV #2.  Everyone seems to be forgetting that a CA never has to provide you with validation - ever.  They just can't continue collection attempts until they provide it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And again forgive the ignorance of the question, but does "collection attempts " include or not include the listing on my CR?

[Gryffindor]

If they listed their TL with the CRA's AFTER your initial DV then they would be in violation (see the FTC Cass opinion letter). If you are asking about continued reporting - did you 1-2 punch?

[Pavlov]

If they listed their TL with the CRA's AFTER your initial DV then they would be in violation (see the FTC Cass opinion letter).  If you are asking about continued reporting - did you 1-2 punch?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here are the details: BTW, this company is in Arizona. Imagine my getting help from someone with a name like yours...lol

 

They listed the baddie with EXP in 2002. I sent crude DV letter then, NOT within the 30 days, just after I saw it on my report. Received lots of original papers from them, baddie stayed on for the last two years. No action on my part.

 

Two months ago the baddie appeared on TU. Sent them DV just last month, have green card, sent disputes to TU and EXP upon receipt of green card.

 

Why do you hate Arizona? I grew up there, but it is too hot for me now.

[Larry357]

Why do you hate Arizona? I grew up there, but it is too hot for me now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually the weather is perfect now. I wish it could stay like this year round. Nah maybe not. Too many people will move here. LOL!!!

[Pavlov]

Why do you hate Arizona? I grew up there, but it is too hot for me now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually the weather is perfect now. I wish it could stay like this year round. Nah maybe not. Too many people will move here. LOL!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I still have a lot of family in Tucson. I get a kick out of what they call " perfect " weather.....can't remember I will ask them what perfect weather is, and they tell me it is only 94! LOL! Where I live I don't EVER see 94 degrees.

[Jen23514]

ttt

 

 

 

It seems there is a lot of misconceptions about what a CA must do (or not do) when they recieve a validation/verification request.

 

Only when a CA recieves a verification (I'll be using this term as it is the term that appears in the FDCPA statutory language) request within 30 days of the intial communication must the CA cease all collection efforts until the CA has mailed said verification to the consumer.

 

If a verification letter is sent to the CA outside the 30 day verification window, then any continued collection efforts by the CA are NOT in violation.

 

Also, note that just because a verification request is sent to the CA after the 30 day window the consumer does not lose their right to dispute the debt, it simply means that they must find another cause of action to go after the CA to drag them into court.

 

Please make this a sticky.