Advice on a validation please???

[Ace]

I sent a validation letter to a collection agency/law firm. (Not within the first 30 days and it is already on my CRs) This is what they sent back. any advice on next steps would be appreciated. The debt is for the balance of a apartment lease agreement. I moved out early.

 

Creditor: TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

Property Address: Blah blah

Approximate move-out date: 06/29/02

Original amount of debt: $3915.00

 

Dr Mr. Blah blah

 

Listed below is a summary of your account to date.

 

ACCOUNT SUMMARY

 

Original amount of debt: $3915.00

 

Total of payments to date: $2915.00

Current totla due in this case: $1000.00

 

Please call this office if you have additional questions regarding this matter. Refer to the file number referenced below. As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfil the terms of your credit obligations. This is an attemp to collect a debt and all information gathered will be used soley for this purpose.

[epitomee]

This needs the attention of Butch who can give you the effective means of validationl Essentially, this CA must provide with a signed contract which clearly outlines this obligation. The paper from what I understand must have your signature. The validation letter should have notated that you are not seeking a account summary but proof that you are clearly responsible for this obligation. I a newbie also and I am doing the validation process also. I have searched every forum and my previous comments have been the major consensus.

[PsychDoc]

Here are my notes regarding the matter. Keep in mind these approaches are intended for use with abusive CAs who have failed to comply with the law in their dealings with you.

 

1) The Spears vs. Brennan court case (2001) held that the CA must provide this data: the debt amount, the name of the creditor, specific language that the consumer has 30 days from receipt of the notice to dispute the debt's validity or else it will be considered valid by the CA, yet another notice regarding the consumer's rights during that 30-day period if the debt is disputed and what actions the CA will and must take as a result to answer that action, and finally yet ANOTHER notice that the CA must provide further identifying information regarding the original creditor upon request during that same 30-day period. Believe it or not, that's about all Spears vs. Brennan requires (nope, they're not required to send you a copy of the original contract), yet practically no CA includes those critical notices!

 

2) Moreover, yet another court case -- Jang v. Miller (1997) -- reiterates that there can be no "deviation" in this regard -- those three notices must be present, or else your civil rights under the FDCPA have been abridged.

 

3) Finally, note the FTC Opinion Letter to Wollman in which that authoritative source states: "it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose." In other words, the CA must provide you with information that substantiates the METHOD used to provide the validation especially with regard to documenting their contact with the ORIGINAL CREDITOR FOLLOWING YOUR REQUEST rather than just depending upon their current records.

 

4) The CA also must be able to prove that they actually did answer your validation request. If they do everything right and simply mail you the answer, then they won't be able to prove that their response occurred. To prevent the consumer from claiming that the validation request was simply ignored, they should send their response (which includes everything I just described in the three points above) to you via certified mail with return-receipt requested.

 

So, what's your next step? I would send a second validation letter and include this: "You apparently relied upon your own records to validate this debt, an action which has been held to be insufficient under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Again, I am demanding legal validation of this debt, not a summary of your current records."

 

Also, remember that these people do not want to take the time to ring up the original creditor (with whom they may not even have a business relationship). In fact, they don't want to do anything except get paid. In their eyes, you are a nuisance. All of that speaks to the probability that they will continue screwing up with each exchange of letters.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Doc

[PsychDoc]

I'd like to add something to what I just wrote.

 

While Spears vs. Brennan doesn't require that the CA produce the original contract (because all that does is prove that you ONCE OWED AN AMOUNT -- but it doesn't speak to WHAT YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY PAID OFF, hence the current alleged debt isn't validated at all)...

 

Anyway, while Spears vs. Brennan doesn't require that the CA produce the original contract, I was reading over Butch's validation thread on another site, and he meticulously documents your right to see that contract anyway under the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" (FRCP). The CA doesn't want to go through that either. This is one item (the contract) that I might explicitly request because it ups your nuisance quotient considerably even though it doesn't contribute to their perfected validation one bit. I might say something like this: "Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), you are required to produce the original contract which gave rise to this alleged debt, and I will expect that along with your legal validation."

 

I hope all this helps.

 

Randy

[Ace]

Thanks Doc. I really appreciate your replies.

[Ace]

One more question. Since they didn't send it CRRR should I follow your strategy above which implies reciept or should I follow up as if it were a second follow-up to an unanswered demand?

 

Also, (I guess this makes two questions) should I now dispute it with the CRA on the basis that they did not respond properly to a request for validation? If they then validate to the CRA isn't that a violation? (I have been doing my reading but am still not completely clear on all the issues.)

[PsychDoc]

I would send the second validation letter since they don't seem to understand statutory compliance.

 

Doc

[Butch]

your nuisance quotient

 

OOOOH I like that!

 

Follow Doc to the letter Ace.

[Ace]

It's great to have people of your caliber sharing your experience.

 

Thanks very much.

[kweenthat-Iam]

tester

[kweenthat-Iam]

IM sorry I didn't mean to mess up this thread. Just wanted to see if I could post as wasn't able to before. Forgive me :roll:

[breeze]

I can delete those posts if you would like for me to. Just say the word.