Some good advice: RE; validation

[Phreedom]

I think this deserves to be reposted and huge credit to Sassy.

 

So many times during our correspondence with CA's in regards to validation, we've sent long letters detailing to the CA what infomation the CA needs to give us to satisfy our validation request. Yet we all send our validation letters hoping the CA doesn't respond or if they do, they don't meet the validation requirements.

 

Sooooo why in the world do we give them explicit instructions on what is needed to satisfy validation requirements? Almost all of the template validation letters I've seen give very detailed instructions for the CA. As the consumer disputing a debt, it is not our job nor are we required to lead the CA around by the hand and HELP them with their obligations by telling them what they need to do.

 

So, during a discussion in another thread, Sassy provided the following (and brilliant I might add) response example of a validation letter.

 

I've expanded on it slightly just for formatting sake. Ready?

 

Your Name

 

Date

 

Re: Account # 123456787

 

Dear CA,  

 

I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Joe Consumer

 

That's it. With this letter, I sincerely believe most CA's would simply file this and ignore your request which is EXACTLY what you want. The requirments of validation are all contained in the FDCPA. It's up to THEM to know it and/or read it and learn it. This is what I'll be using from now on for all my validation letters. Thanks Sassy!

[SassyinAz]

Thanks Phreedom!!!!!!!!!!

 

I like your formatting additions too

 

Sassy

[ConnorW]

I've been toying with the idea that maybe less is better. That playing "ignorant" is the way to go. And this is after spending days "perfecting" my validation letter and form.

 

I guess the concept of being detailed half relies on "scarying" the CA by showing them that you know what you're about. That also red flags you as possible trouble. This may be good if you knwo yuo're right and have damages that they can't possibly avoid, such as a mortgage. On the other hand if you're wanting rack up violations, then maybe "ignorant" is the way to go. Let them think you're Joe Consumer who doesn't really know their rights and they can just play you off like they do everyone else. Then *BAM* you suddenly do know your rights and are bringing them to task. "Sun Tzu and the Art of Credit Repair"?

[Credit Please]

I agree, this is my letter to the all CA's

[SassyinAz]

Connor,

 

It isn't playing ignorant, that is all the FDCPA says to do. The only thing I might add is a request for the original creditor's name and address as also specified.

 

You don't even have to use the word validation, using that word specifically and referencing the FDCPA says you definately aren't ignorant.

 

The FDCPA says, if a consumer disputes the debt or any portion thereof in writing...or requests the name and address of the original creditor, also in writing. That's it, that's all it says a consumer has to do.

 

If they can't even do what is specified why would you ask for what isn't, especially as a first request, and based on what??? It gives them maximized opportunity to screw up, why should we help them at all, they are supposed to know what validation is, we aren't.

 

Sassy

[Guest LesterTheNightfly]

I don't have much to add other than I just made a decision about my 2nd VOD in the exact same spirit as is being discussed here.

 

My goal, in this case, is to maximize the number of violations on the CA's part. So, after reading umpteen 2nd VODs that demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the sender knows exactly what's going on, I chose to follow what I'm pretty sure was a Sassy suggestion (a suggestion for if one's purpose is to not get a response--to rack up violations) from another thread, i.e. put "2nd Request" at the top of your original. Besides "2nd Request" I added "YOU HAVE FIFTEEN (15) DAYS TO RESPOND" and resent the original otherwise unchanged.

 

BTW, I love USPS NetPost CMRRR for this stuff. Saves me a trip to the PostOffice after work (when I'd rather be riding my bike) and the inevitable stand in line. Works great if you don't have to sign or include attachments.

 

Now, with this particular CA, I wish I'd have sent the "validation" letter above. I want them to blow me (off, blow me off is what I meant to say) so bad.

[Phreedom]

I guess the concept of being detailed half relies on "scarying" the CA by showing them that you know what you're about.

 

This is very true however, this is the wrong strategy in your initial correspondence with a CA. There will come a time in your dealings with a CA that the strategy quoted above will work to your benefit.

 

The whole objective (in most validations) is that we hope the CA doesn't validate and/or ignores us. Why? That racks up violations and puts the consumer in a position to make demands based on those violations. If you tip your hand early and let them know they are dealing with someone who is versed in the law, they'll be far more likely to dot their I's and cross their T's.

 

Once you have some violations racked up, you are then in a position to make demands and that is the time to show your hand and hopefully use the "threat of a lawsuit" to manipulate them into deleting.

 

Both strategies (less is better and more is better) are required but each must be used at the correct time to obtain desired results.

[ConnorW]

:oops: Note to self... don't post "when not all there"

 

Sassy - You said it better than I did.

 

CA's rely on a consumer's "ignorance". We should rely on their "arrogance".

[Andreas]

As Sassy would say, nodding with ya.

 

The FCRA is an act of congress requiring information in a credit report to be accurate and complete. More specifically, it requires consumer reporting agencies to do this by adopting reasonable procedures...in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization.

 

If a dispute is made by the consumer, it is the responsibility of the CRA to verify that the information is complete and accurate by verifying within 30 days. If the consumer can prove that the information is still inaccurate or incomplete after the investigation, then that is all the proof needed that the furnisher (and technically the CRA) is in violation, which is grounds for removal and civil liability.

 

Connor is right -- most of them play ignorant. I say let them do it in front of a judge. It's not our job to tell them how stupid they are, no matter how tempting.

[wekiva]

I wholeheartedly agree that in this case less is more! I pared down the overused validation sample letters months ago and have used it with pretty fair success -- although I wish I had cut out more garbage than I did. In my future validation letters (if there are any more in my future) I will use one similar to the one-liner posted above, but will also include a statement requesting the CA only contact me via mail -- no phone calls.

 

Good post.

[creditoops]

I have been psyching myself up to do a validation letter and I feel better about sending this one that the others. Sometimes LESS is more..

 

Novice question here: I have heard over and over on this forum about racking up violations and my searches for violations just come back with more threads about how folks have the ca's and cra's on different violations. But what I don't know is once you have the violations...what is the next step? the ITS letter?

 

Learning more every day on this forum.....

[doubledteacher]

Sooooo why in the world do we give them explicit instructions on what is needed to satisfy validation requirements? Almost all of the template validation letters I've seen give very detailed instructions for the CA. As the consumer disputing a debt, it is not our job nor are we required to lead the CA around by the hand and HELP them with their obligations by telling them what they need to do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting...Just finished my first validation letter today to be sent at the end of the month (at the end of my 30 given days---have 3 mos. before SOL expires). I like the idea (an inference of ignorance) of the abbreviated letter. My question is, can I continue to request validation from them one bit of info at a time (i.e. if they don't send the original account #, can I send a letter requesting it, then when they supply it, send another requesting some other minute tidbit of unnecessary information) or is this a one-time deal? I'm trying to buy time.

 

BTW, new here...Have learned lots from another forum, so am expanding my wings. If only I had known that these forums were around when I began my journey up that proverbial creek! :?

[JohnsonvilleBrats]

I am going to use this simple letter, but add in 2 lines I found from another letter stating specifically what is needed, so I dont get the print out everyone seems to say they get.

 

Opinions on the last line though. Took Sassy's advice asking for the original creditors name and address, but what about asking for the date of last activity?? IMO, thats where, if they report it wrong and you know what the DOLA is, wouldnt that prettty much be an open door to the CRA to have the TL deleted?

 

Your Name

 

Date

 

Re: Account # 123456787

 

Dear CA,

 

I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

 

Be advised that I am not requesting a "verification" that you have my mailing address, I am requesting a validation, that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you. Also, please provide the original creditor's name, address, and date of last activity.

 

Sincerely,

 

Joe Consumer

[dll7005]

I used simple request for copy signed agreement and total accounting to a CA attorney.

 

About 45 days later received Civil Summons with an unsigned agreement and an affidavit of claim attached.

 

Doesn't Spears vs Brennan and FTC-Wollman apply here?

[Credit Please]

Bump, because this is so beautiful! :cry:

[munci98]

I found this perfect letter yesterday. and USED IT. LOVE IT.

[onetwo]

I would think that this letter really would only be beneficial during that first 30 day period, when a letter like this can easily set up a CA for violations of 809(. After the 30 days, however, IMO it would be a waste of time as they don't suffer as much for ignoring it and continuing their efforts to collect.

 

I think that if you're after the 30 days, you have to scare them a bit more with a thinly veiled threat of litigation for inaccurate reporting -- if you've missed the deadline, your goals shift from fishing for easy violations to actually getting stuff deleted. With the letter suggested here, you will almost certainly have to send another, more threatening followup, so why even waste time with it?

 

In my 'missed 30-day deadline' validation letters, I don't even forbid the CA to assign or sell the debt -- actually, I hope they do. That way, I get a 'do-over' with another CA, do things within the 30 days, and gain some REAL leverage for closing the whole situation on MY terms.

[SassyinAz]

I would think that this letter really would only be beneficial during that first 30 day period, when a letter like this can easily set up a CA for violations of 809(. After the 30 days, however, IMO it would be a waste of time as they don't suffer as much for ignoring it and continuing their efforts to collect.

The violations are the same outside of the 30-days, assuming there was an initial communication, they just fall under different sections of the FDCPA.

 

I think that if you're after the 30 days, you have to scare them a bit more with a thinly veiled threat of litigation for inaccurate reporting -- if you've missed the deadline, your goals shift from fishing for easy violations to actually getting stuff deleted. With the letter suggested here, you will almost certainly have to send another, more threatening followup, so why even waste time with it?

There is no thinly veiled threat of anything, did you read the letter?

 

In my 'missed 30-day deadline' validation letters, I don't even forbid the CA to assign or sell the debt -- actually, I hope they do. That way, I get a 'do-over' with another CA, do things within the 30 days, and gain some REAL leverage for closing the whole situation on MY terms.

Please post your letter, I'd love to read it.

 

I hope you never forbid a CA to assign or sell a debt, nor does the letter in this thread, you've no authority to do so.

 

Sassy

[onetwo]

I would think that this letter really would only be beneficial during that first 30 day period, when a letter like this can easily set up a CA for violations of 809(. After the 30 days, however, IMO it would be a waste of time as they don't suffer as much for ignoring it and continuing their efforts to collect.

The violations are the same outside of the 30-days, assuming there was an initial communication, they just fall under different sections of the FDCPA.

 

What are the other sections of the FDCPA that state that a collector must cease collection activities after notification of a dispute? I honestly would like to know.

 

The only violation I feel that the CA is likely to commit is that they won't properly notate the TL as 'in dispute' -- IIRC, this is actually part of the FCRA...?

 

I think that if you're after the 30 days, you have to scare them a bit more with a thinly veiled threat of litigation for inaccurate reporting -- if you've missed the deadline, your goals shift from fishing for easy violations to actually getting stuff deleted. With the letter suggested here, you will almost certainly have to send another, more threatening followup, so why even waste time with it?

There is no thinly veiled threat of anything, did you read the letter?

 

Um, did you read my post? :wink: I stated that if you missed the 30 day deadline then your letter should include some sort of threat -- one that the letter is obviously missing.

 

Again, if someone outside of the 30 days sends in their dispute, then the goal isn't necessarily to have the CA ignore you -- unless, of course, there is something in the FDCPA that dictates that they cease collection regardless of when they receive the dispute. In that case, you can just sit back and wait for them to mess up.

 

In my 'missed 30-day deadline' validation letters, I don't even forbid the CA to assign or sell the debt -- actually, I hope they do. That way, I get a 'do-over' with another CA, do things within the 30 days, and gain some REAL leverage for closing the whole situation on MY terms.

Please post your letter, I'd love to read it.

 

I hope you never forbid a CA to assign or sell a debt, nor does the letter in this thread, you've no authority to do so.

 

Sassy

 

I PM'ed it to you. I would definitely appreciate any constructive criticism on it...

 

Regarding my ability to forbid a CA to sell or assign a debt, I know that that's not one of my rights... What I DO know is that if you have a CA cornered with multiple violations of assorted FDCPA and FCRA statutes and have complied with the 30-day rule for validation, you have a ton of leverage to ask for whatever the heck you want

[SassyinAz]

hmmmmm, ok, you're giving the CA's too much power, they have no authority. They have to obey the rules, they don't make them -- that is who the FDCPA applies to, them, not you.

 

Here's the purpose from the FDCPA:

 

(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.

 

There is no provision in the FDCPA that either gives any rights to a consumer or takes any away.

 

Sassy

[radi8]

What are the other sections of the FDCPA that state that a collector must cease collection activities after notification of a dispute? I honestly would like to know.

 

After the initial 30 days have passed, there are no such sections that I am aware of.

 

You do have a bit of FDCPA leverage as to selling a disputed debt, in that it might be considered "misrepresenting the status of a debt".

 

 

 

 

Radi8

[onetwo]

Hey Sassy, did you check your PMs? I'd love to hear your comments...

 

hmmmmm, ok, you're giving the CA's too much power, they have no authority.

 

Yeah, it seems that way, but I subscribe to the school of thought that it is best to have the laws fully and clearly behind me when building my paper trail. The last thing you want to do is end up in court arguing the subleties of the writing of the law -- I want to decrease my dependence on mere interpretations and opinions of the law as much as I possibly can.

 

We KNOW that CAs must case and desist if you DV in 30 days.

 

Knowing for sure is key.

[SassyinAz]

What are the other sections of the FDCPA that state that a collector must cease collection activities after notification of a dispute? I honestly would like to know.

 

After the initial 30 days have passed, there are no such sections that I am aware of.

 

You do have a bit of FDCPA leverage as to selling a disputed debt, in that it might be considered "misrepresenting the status of a debt".

 

Radi8

 

There is no other section of the FDCPA that requires a CA to cease collection. However, if your validation letter includes wording to limit communications, all further communications (e.g., verbal) would be a violation.

 

Under the false and misleading section, after receipt of a validation letter, continuing to report would be a violation (reporting information that is known or should be known to be false) as would failure to communicate to the CRA's that the disputed debt is disputed.

 

See these 2 threads and the threads linked within them:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...t=39905&start=0

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...9944&highlight=

 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out this new movement trickling over from other boards in leading people to believe that validation outside of some non-determined 30-day period that applies to CA's, is worthless and without violations.

 

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).

 

That's all the 30-day period is good for, at that point, allowing the CA to walk away without liability for the mistake.

 

Sassy

[four20nik]

Agreed Sassy.

 

The violation that doesnt exist is about the CA having to cease collections...but the rest of the fdcpa applies...and your right on point about other violations that take it's place.

 

Actually, these new violations would constitute the possibility of enforcing other consumer remedies as well...dtpa, etc. Not saying those remedies wouldnt already be available...but...violations of deceptive...etc., of the fdcpa will be easier to support and give the CA less to stand on.

[onetwo]

Thank you Sassy for that enlightening post! Those are definitely some other possible concrete violations that you can catch a CA on. Remember, however, that we're talking about the letter at the beginning of this thread.

 

It doesn't have a limited C&D.

 

There may be an issue of getting a judge to side with you that a letter of such brevity gives the CA proper notice that it is reporting inaccurate information.

 

It DOES serve as good backup if they don't properly notate the disputed account.

 

Again, thank you for your post, as I certainly didn't want to mislead readers into thinking that DV after the 30 days is a worthless endeavor!