Copies of Statements

[FijiUCF]

Friends,

 

I am very sensitive to posting questions that may have already been answered. I've searched this site and others and I just can't figure out the answer OR the criteria for which to answer the following two questions.

 

When a CA sends copies of OC statements in response to a DV, does this response constitue proper validation?

 

What is the proper course of action?

 

Thank you all.

[CramItCCCAs]

Copies of statements do not constitute validation, your next step is to send a follow up validation request acknowledging their attempt to validate but informing them that they have fallen short.

[FijiUCF]

Thanks!

Should letter be as simple as that (i.e. only a few short sentences)? Are there sample letters to base mine on? I didn't see any in the Sample Letters Forum.

[AAA]

curious did they send you a computer printout or was it actual copies of monthly statements?

[FijiUCF]

Copies of statements.

Have you had a similiar experience?

[StupidCredit]

Maybe it is, maybe it isnt.

 

How many statements were there? What are the dates compared to when the account was closed? Does the final balance reflect what they are claiming?

[AAA]

I got a computer printout claiming to be statements and historical data which didn't even match what's being reported on my credit reports but this was supposed to be there proof that it belonged to me (yeah right).

 

ETA I only got this printout after complaining to my states attorney general about my situaiton. I had allready asked 3 times for validation prior. Anyway I just finished sending a pre ITS and a Cease and Desist, if that does not work, my next effort will be a "show up in court you butts are sued".

Edited September 13, 2005 by AAAAngels2003

[CramItCCCAs]

Maybe it is, maybe it isnt.

 

How many statements were there?  What are the dates compared to when the account was closed?  Does the final balance reflect what they are claiming?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

IT IS NOT VALIDATION! Dispite what SC wrote above

 

as to your letter here are some validation # 2's but don't cut and paste them, write your own letter and add a piece here and there.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60144

[StupidCredit]

Maybe it is, maybe it isnt.

 

How many statements were there?  What are the dates compared to when the account was closed?  Does the final balance reflect what they are claiming?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

IT IS NOT VALIDATION! Dispite what SC wrote above

 

as to your letter here are some validation # 2's but don't cut and paste them, write your own letter and add a piece here and there.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60144

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why isn't it? Validation is an informal process. Is this a CA or a JDB?

 

If they can send you copies of several statements for the last several months before the account was charged off with your name and address and a final balance owing that they are trying collect, sounds pretty good to me. What more do you honestly expect?

[FijiUCF]

This debate illuminates my confusion as to whether or not is constituteds validation. Perhaps we can use this thread to clear the confusion.

 

To answer your question, this is a Wolpoff & Abamson, law office collecting a debt.

[RoadtoSuccess]

  What more do you honestly expect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Competent evidence that the debt is owed to the CA. I've signed agreements with OCs, but never CAs.

[Niteraven]

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126346

 

FijiUCF Been there recently with success one main issues was improper validation per the FDCPA

[StupidCredit]

  What more do you honestly expect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Competent evidence that the debt is owed to the CA. I've signed agreements with OCs, but never CAs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, the answer depends on if it is a CA or a JDB.

 

If it's a CA, why would they ever need to send a copy of a statement you signed?

 

It is completely unnecessary to show a copy of a contract in court for open accounts. If we are talking about a loan, that's different. If the OC is still the owner of the debt, they only have to prove that you used the card which means you agreed to whatever terms they had.

 

A copy of the signed contract is generally only relevant if you are claiming your identity was stolen. Otherwise you obtained a card, you used it, they sent statements with your name to your address that you didn't object to. Case closed.

 

For example, some CA is assigned an account by Bank of America.

You are dunned.

You DV.

They send you copies of your last 12 statements up to the time it was charged off.

They final balanced owed is $511.56

They are requesting payment of $511.56 be made to BOA.

What leg do you honestly think you have to stand on? If BOA desires, they will sue and win unless they tacked on interest that exceeds your state's usury law, in which case you can lower the award.

 

Do you think BOA is going to send copies of account statements to a CA that isn't really working the account? I don't think banks make a habit of sending those kinds of things out to anyone who asks.

 

So either the CA obtained the statements from BOA because they were properly contracted to collect the debt OR the CA happened to get those last twelve statements out of your garbage and are trying to extort you.

 

This is completely different if you know BOA sold the account to a JDB. A JDB can never ever ever produce validation IMO.

 

IMO as long as the OC has an interest in the collecting of the debt while its in statute, tread carefully.

Edited September 13, 2005 by StupidCredit

[RoadtoSuccess]

some CA is assigned an account by Bank of America.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right.....and they have to prove it. Statements do not. As far as I am concerned, I owe Bank of America only.

 

I just went through this with MBNA. Some CA kept calling and they finally sent a dunning letter. I DV'd them. Next thing you know, the OC is calling me. I explain that I don't know the CA from Adam and they understood. Took advantage of the situation and started negotiation.

Edited September 13, 2005 by RoadtoSuccess

[CramItCCCAs]

Why isn't it?  Validation is an informal process.  Is this a CA or a JDB? 

 

If they can send you copies of several statements for the last several months before the account was charged off with your name and address and a final balance owing that they are trying collect, sounds pretty good to me.  What more do you honestly expect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What makes you think validation is informal? Because the FDCPA doesn't define it? Ok if that makes it informal then I'll go with that for the sake of argument. However there is a lot of leeway here and to assume that the CA/JDB has all of the advantages of that leeway because of a very few recent cases isn't fair IMHO.

 

To me, and yes this is my opinion but it's also the opinion of many here, validation is at the very least proof of a CA's authority to collect, proof the debt is yours, and a FULL accounting of what is owed. Is validation a legal standard? No, but what is considered a reasonable request is for a judge to decide, and not an OC acting as a CA.

 

Leave OC's out of it, it's still the FDCPA until a judge tells you otherwise, we can debate back and forth about CA’s vs. JDB’s all you want, but to the OP, IMHO you are best served by send DV # 2 and following up on it. It's a completely legal and reasonable request.

[StupidCredit]

Right.....and they have to prove it.  Statements do not.  As far as I am concerned, I owe Bank of America only.

They prove it by showing you that they obtained information from the OC. If they are NOT the collector for the OC, the OC will NOT send them information. It's as simple as that.

 

If you have issue with it after that, a simple phone call to the OC can resolve that for you. They can easily say "yup pay xyz". Then what? You going to fight and fight and fight, then sue the CA and get another Chaudry ruling on the books?

 

Just like in your situation, you used that opportunity to attempt negotiations with the OC, which is always my advice. Send the CAs a dispute, see how they react. Most of the time they just turn it back to the OC and that gives you a window to negotiate it with them.

 

However with an in statute debt with the collecting interesting lying with the OC, you should only go so far unless the CA is violating left and right with their letters.

 

If I were OP, I'd be looking at other options other than continuing to send letters. If you have them on solid violations, that's one thing. MAYBE you can continue to send them letters saying it was insufficient and they will return it to the OC.

 

OP still has not answered my other questions, namely what are the dates compared to the closing date and what is the balance owed compared to what they are asking? Is this a CA or JDB?

[Niteraven]

"IMO as long as the OC has an interest in the collecting of the debt while its in statute, tread carefully"

SC you are most certainly correct here. The OC most often does have ALL the data to validate and verify.

However and please dont flame me here most times and I mean most times cas or jdbs don't. Once the OP stated who from personal experience I knew this ca doesn't. I went thru this maze with my fingers crossed and alot of hard work researching the validation angle. I also used something else that pointed out to me here on this board their witness statement. I took it apart and pointed out discrepencies and the judge agreed.

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion and personal experience.Use it with caution...

[CramItCCCAs]

Right.....and they have to prove it.  Statements do not.  As far as I am concerned, I owe Bank of America only.

They prove it by showing you that they obtained information from the OC. If they are NOT the collector for the OC, the OC will NOT send them information. It's as simple as that.

 

If you have issue with it after that, a simple phone call to the OC can resolve that for you. They can easily say "yup pay xyz". Then what? You going to fight and fight and fight, then sue the CA and get another Chaudry ruling on the books?

 

Just like in your situation, you used that opportunity to attempt negotiations with the OC, which is always my advice. Send the CAs a dispute, see how they react. Most of the time they just turn it back to the OC and that gives you a window to negotiate it with them.

 

However with an in statute debt with the collecting interesting lying with the OC, you should only go so far unless the CA is violating left and right with their letters.

 

If I were OP, I'd be looking at other options other than continuing to send letters. If you have them on solid violations, that's one thing. MAYBE you can continue to send them letters saying it was insufficient and they will return it to the OC.

 

OP still has not answered my other questions, namely what are the dates compared to the closing date and what is the balance owed compared to what they are asking? Is this a CA or JDB?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought I knew what your argument against valdation was SC, now I'm confused, I don't follow you at all. To the OP again IMHO DV#2 is the way to go. SC feels differently but I'm not sure why.

 

If you want some reading on this check out radi8 article on the chaundy:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/mambo/index.ph...w&id=9&Itemid=2

 

and in my sigy there is some good info on validation explained

[StupidCredit]

To me, and yes this is my opinion but it's also the opinion of many here, validation is at the very least proof of a CA's authority to collect

If the CA didn't have the authority to collect from the OC, why do they have copies of billing statements assuming this debt has not been passed around for years and years?

 

proof the debt is yours

How does copies of billing statements from your creditor with your name and address on it not show this?

 

and a FULL accounting of what is owed.

If you are being sued, that's one thing. Just remember what the intent of the FDCPA is. Going in front of a federal judge and saying the CA didn't provide a complete account of the debt as validation could get very undesirable caselaw results. What happens if you sue and the judge rules they only have to send the last three months of billing statements as competent validation?

 

It works in our best interests that the validation process is not expressly defined in the FDCPA. I'd like "obtains verification and forwards a copy of the verification" to expressly say that documentation must be obtained from the ORIGINAL creditor, but I guess that's not happening anytime soon.

 

IMO, I think you just need to get a feel of the situation. Validation needs to stay an informal process unless its known we can get solid caselaw on the books saying xyz is required and xyz is nearly impossible to obtain for a CA. We all have to maintain our own standard of what validation is. If you want to require everything under the sun including contracts and blood samples, that's you.

 

I'd rather not have CAs sending notices in their dunning letters with cites of StupidCredit v Poser Collection Agency where a judge ruled that validation is a copy of your last billing statement, nothing more is required.

 

If they send random billing statements, no. If they have their act together and have consecutive billing statements for the six months or year prior to account closing and are trying to collect the exact amount and the account is recently charged off and send all the proper notices in their letters, you need to step away from the aggressive approach and try to find another way around it. You could always complete C&D them and tell the OC you will only work with them.

 

Again, this is all my opinion. My idea of validation is less strict than many of you it appears, but I think its very reasonable. 99.9% of CAs probably can't meet my standard anyway, so it's moot.

[StupidCredit]

I thought I knew what your argument against valdation was SC, now I'm confused, I don't follow you at all. To the OP again IMHO DV#2 is the way to go. SC feels differently but I'm not sure why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mentioned Chaudry, because it was an example of a debtor who went gung-ho in court and ended up putting a stumbling block in our process. Whether you think it applies to us or not, it's another excuse for CAs to give us the run around and slow down our process. Until we get caselaw on the books that sending the Chaudry letter violates 1692e and 1692g, it's something we have to deal with. Chaudry is sometimes cited by judges in their FDCPA rulings, but more the "detailed records are not required to be kept by the CA" part.

 

I'm mainly saying this.

 

The FDCPA does not require the CA to show proof of a contract with the OC. That's something you could ask for in discovery during a court case. I'm not saying you can't ask for it, but they are under no obligation to provide it.

 

A CA obtaining documents from the OC, in my mind, is pretty good proof that they ARE contracted by the OC to collect. Why else would they have the statements? I can see if the debt had been passed around several times and copies of those statements have gotten around. That's why I said get a feel for the situation. If this is the first CA you've heard from about this debt and it's in statute, those copies of consecutive statements are good enough for ME that they are contracted by the OC. Licensing/bonding for your state is another issue of course. However the, "proof that they are authorized to collect" portion of my dispute is satisfied. If I had any doubts, a simple phonecall to the OC could clear that up.

[RoadtoSuccess]

and in my sigy there is some good info on validation explained

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

BUMP.

 

OP should definitely read this thread:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...0&hl=validation

Edited September 13, 2005 by RoadtoSuccess

[CramItCCCAs]

Yeah see it's not moot, and I don't think telling others that statements may constitute validation is reasonable at all!

 

This is very important stuff! It's important that everyone here know that it's unreasonable to assume statements constitute validation because anything can be reproduced in today world, Moreover CA's can and do act on their own to collect debts and then sell settlements to OC's! This is where your assumptions maybe doing harm IMHO.

 

There are vigilante CA's, there are speculative collectors that act on their own. Validation protects against this and holds the collector to the OTHER idea of what is considered "reasonable"

[RoadtoSuccess]

SC,

 

I understand what you are trying to say, however...

 

IMHO, some contractual agreement between the OC and CA would provide better proof as to who is owed. Statements provide better proof as to what is owed. A federal judge should be able to decypher the difference there....

[StupidCredit]

This is very important stuff! It's important that everyone here know that it's unreasonable to assume statements constitute validation because anything can be reproduced in today world, Moreover CA's can and do act on their own to collect debts and then sell settlements to OC's! This is where your assumptions maybe doing harm IMHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand that. That's why I say evaulate the situation individually. The older the account is and the longer its been passed around, the stricter MY requirements are. Once you have the copies of those statements in hand, there is nothing stopping you from contacting the OC and making 100% sure that the CA is contracted by them and that they DID send those statements. You could even use a CYA type letter with them.

 

Dear OC;

 

Recently I was contacted by Poser Collection Agency about acct# 12345678

 

They sent me copies of statements proporting to be from you. In the current world of high technology, I am very concerned about forged documentation which could be an enabler of identity theft. I am not 100% sure that these statements actually came from you. I would be willing and able to negotiate with your company directly about this matter. If Poser Collection Agency is really acting in your name, I request that you recall the account and I will negotiate in good faith directly with OC about acct# 12345678.

 

If they are not acting in your name, please be advised that they are claiming to act in your name and could be defrauding your customers.

 

Sincerely,

Stupid Credit

 

Can't hurt to send a letter like that IMO.

[RoadtoSuccess]

Once you have the copies of those statements in hand, there is nothing stopping you from contacting the OC and making 100% sure that the CA is contracted by them and that they DID send those statements. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is their job, not yours.....