Validation After Initial 30-day Period?

[usclaw2002]

I've searched the forum and the "mother thread",as well as Lexis and Westlaw and can find no authority showing that a CA must respond to a validation request made after the initial 30-day validation period described in the FDCPA. I do not believe this is correct and I think that a CA must validate a debt anytime a request is received. Anybody have some authority saying that?

 

Here's the situation. CA is collecting for a hospital. CA claims they sent dunning letter 01/25/2005 -- I did not receive this notice. CA placed collection account on EQ yesterday. CA claims that after initial 30-day validation period expires, that debt is "just, legal, and valid." Now, I know that is not accurate. Under the FDCPA, failure to ask for validation during the initial 30-day validation period cannot be used to impart liability for the underlying debt. I have them on many other violations as well, and it's all on tape. I'll have it transcribed today and post it if I need to.

[TX_Aggie_07]

Can they prove they mailed you anything? Did they send it CMRRR?

[pryan67]

well, as you know the FDCPA DOES say that the COLLECTOR may consider the debt valid...

 

doesn't say anything at all about anyone else...

[TX_Aggie_07]

Can they prove they mailed you anything?  Did they send it CMRRR?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I found a case that says that the 30 day period starts when the consumer actually receives notice, so if you didn't get the original notice, the 30 day period didn't start. See Allen v. ATG Credit LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25304.

[pryan67]

Can they prove they mailed you anything?  Did they send it CMRRR?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I found a case that says that the 30 day period starts when the consumer actually receives notice, so if you didn't get the original notice, the 30 day period didn't start. See Allen v. ATG Credit LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25304.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

BUT!!! Did it ever END?

[TX_Aggie_07]

BUT!!!  Did it ever END?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, because it never started. If you don't get the notice of your right to dispute a debt, the 30 day period doesn't begin (at least this is what I think from my reading of these cases). In fact, according to the court, the date of receipt by the consumer is the statutory language (and I seem to remember that being the case). At any rate, if you don't get the notice (and they can't otherwise prove you got it), it means the thirty day period never started, much less ended. I think this is why most CAs will attempt to validate, even following the 30 day period, unless they sent the original communication CMRRR.

[pryan67]

BUT!!!  Did it ever END?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, because it never started. If you don't get the notice of your right to dispute a debt, the 30 day period doesn't begin (at least this is what I think from my reading of these cases). In fact, according to the court, the date of receipt by the consumer is the statutory language (and I seem to remember that being the case). At any rate, if you don't get the notice (and they can't otherwise prove you got it), it means the thirty day period never started, much less ended. I think this is why most CAs will attempt to validate, even following the 30 day period, unless they sent the original communication CMRRR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

so...let's say a CA NEVER sends you communication...ever...and they admit that...

 

 

you NEVER have the right to dispute, and they can verify and place it on your report?

 

 

I'd love to see a judge's decision on only that...ya know?

 

I'd think that a judge would say that the initial communication would be (for this particular case) when you saw it on your report...

[Frisbee]

I can't find the case so excuse a possible dumb question here: In a case where you find a JDB has been sitting for months on your CR with no other form of communication, if you send a d/v stating something to the effect I just reviewed my CR on this date, never heard from you previously, etc...are you forcing the 30 days for initial contact?

[joshbgosh]

I can't find the case so excuse a possible dumb question here: In a case where you find a JDB has been sitting for months on your CR with no other form of communication, if you send a d/v stating something to the effect I just reviewed my CR on this date, never heard from you previously, etc...are you forcing the 30 days for initial contact?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I consider that initial contact and i believe the courts would as well.

 

If they never send you anything and you ofind it on your CR, then that seems likethe initial contact.

[joshbgosh]

BUT!!!  Did it ever END?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, because it never started. If you don't get the notice of your right to dispute a debt, the 30 day period doesn't begin (at least this is what I think from my reading of these cases). In fact, according to the court, the date of receipt by the consumer is the statutory language (and I seem to remember that being the case). At any rate, if you don't get the notice (and they can't otherwise prove you got it), it means the thirty day period never started, much less ended. I think this is why most CAs will attempt to validate, even following the 30 day period, unless they sent the original communication CMRRR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

so...let's say a CA NEVER sends you communication...ever...and they admit that...

 

 

you NEVER have the right to dispute, and they can verify and place it on your report?

 

 

I'd love to see a judge's decision on only that...ya know?

 

I'd think that a judge would say that the initial communication would be (for this particular case) when you saw it on your report...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think that is exactly what TX aggie is saying

[usclaw2002]

Can they prove they mailed you anything?  Did they send it CMRRR?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was not mailed CMRRR, and the rep states that they are not required to send it CMRRR, nor are they required to keep a copy of the letter. Obviously, they have problems showing the letter was mailed if they can't even produce a copy of the damned thing.

 

Granted, the FDCPA states that the initial 30-day period starts upon RECEIPT of the inital communication and if I never received that communication then the period never ran. My question is more specifically, after the 30-days run (assuming they ran in this case), is there a requirement that a CA validates if the debt is disputed? I can't find anything stating this, yet everything I know about this law tells me otherwise.

[pryan67]

A CA NEVER has to validate...

 

if it's within the initial 30 days, then they must cease collection activities...

 

if it's NOT, they can continue to attempt to collect...HOWEVER...then other sections of FDCPA (misrepresentation of the status of a debt for one) and the FCRA (reporting information that's known, or should be known to be incorrect...not marking in dispute, etc) come into play

[IDare]

Linking back to thread that might be helpful: Misconceptions about validation

[usclaw2002]

Linking back to thread that might be helpful: Misconceptions about validation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very good. This is exactly the type of thread I was looking for when I was searching the forums. For some reason, it wasn't popping up.

 

I was sure that they could continue collection efforts if the validation request was made after the initial 30-day period, but I wasn't 100% sure whether they HAD to validate if the dispute was received after that period expired. In this case, my argument is the period never started to begin with since I never received the initial communication.

 

In my opinion, the initial communication cannot be finding it on a credit report since that contact is through a third-party agency. I feel that it has to be direct communication, so, in my opinion, the 30 days began running when I called them yesterday (I know, stay off the phone -- but I recorded it and in SC it IS admissible evidence). From yesterday's date, they have 5 days to provide me with the required disclosures concerning right to validate, right to have the original creditor's name and address, etc. If they don't do this, I am fairly positive I can use this as another violation if I decide to sue them.

 

Thanks for all your help. This place is a great resource full of decent, knowledgeable folks and it is always a pleasure reading the boards.

[IDare]

Also a good idea to thoroughly review you state's version of the FDCPA if there is one. In my state, it says the collection agencies must cease collection efforts if the debt is disputed, and provide evidence of the debt when requested. Doesn't say anything about any 30 day period there. Sweet!

[usclaw2002]

  Also a good idea to thoroughly review you state's version of the FDCPA if there is one.  In my state, it says the collection agencies must cease collection efforts if the debt is disputed, and provide evidence of the debt when requested.  Doesn't say anything about any 30 day period there. Sweet!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

South Carolina's Consumer Protection Code (Title 37) incorporates most of the FDCPA, but there is only a private cause of action after you have filed a complaint with the state and they find in your favor. There is a one-year statute of limitations for such claims. Also, original creditors are liable for their collections practices under this law.

[Gryffindor]

  Also a good idea to thoroughly review you state's version of the FDCPA if there is one.  In my state, it says the collection agencies must cease collection efforts if the debt is disputed, and provide evidence of the debt when requested.  Doesn't say anything about any 30 day period there. Sweet!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Flying with IDare. Until she brought the fact that our state has a mini FDCPA I thought I might be screwed on my collection accounts.

 

Funny thing, is the CA on my reports is here in my state. You'd think they'd know AZ law as they are licensed and bonded here. They verified w/o validating, reaged, placed negative TL on reports while I was under BK automatic stay, etc.... This is gonna be a good one for the attorney.

[IDare]

Funny thing, is the CA on my reports is here in my state. You'd think they'd know AZ law as they are licensed and bonded here. They verified w/o validating, reaged, placed negative TL on reports while I was under BK automatic stay, etc.... This is gonna be a good one for the attorney.

 

My bet would be that they know the law. They're just assuming that YOU don't! And they'll do as they danged well please until you smack 'em upside the head with the law.

[CramItCCCAs]

Remember,

This is a delicate tango, we have our interpretations, they have theirs, and we both have supporting casework or opinion letters. The bottom line is that if you stick to your guns, send the letters and show a pattern of willful noncompliance, then judge is going to see things your way. Let them play hardball, willingly, it's the rope that hangs them so be happy to be ignored or neglected.

Edited March 30, 2005 by CramItCCCAs

[usclaw2002]

Remember,

This is a delicate tango, we have our interpretations, they have theirs, and we both have supporting casework or opinion letters. The bottom line is that if you stick to your guns, send the letters and show a pattern of willful noncompliance, then judge is going to see things your way. Let them play hardball, willingly, it's the rope that hangs them so be happy to be ignored or neglected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. As an attorney, I'm glad that the FDCPA uses the "least sophisticated consumer" standard so that when they pull this kind of crap on someone who knows better, you're essentially handing them a shovel and letting them bury themselves deeper. It's time to have some fun.

Edited March 30, 2005 by usclaw2002

[Fallon]

Just wanted to chime in with a bit of somewhat relevant info. We in the insurance industry, in the case of a cancellation notice, do not have to have proof that the notice was received by the soon-to-be-ex insured. We simply have to trot down to the post office and get proof that we mailed it, with a date stamp. Maybe it's different as 99.99% of the time we have the insured's exact mailing location and have corresponded with them repeatedly, but wanted to mention that point. I have no idea if a CA would keep track of proof of mailings, and with their track record for keeping tabs on other important data, I'd kind of doubt it.

[CramItCCCAs]

Just wanted to chime in with a bit of somewhat relevant info.  We in the insurance industry, in the case of a cancellation notice, do not have to have proof that the notice was received by the soon-to-be-ex insured.  We simply have to trot down to the post office and get proof that we mailed it, with a date stamp.  Maybe it's different as 99.99% of the time we have the insured's exact mailing location and have corresponded with them repeatedly, but wanted to mention that point.  I have no idea if a CA would keep track of proof of mailings, and with their track record for keeping tabs on other important data, I'd kind of doubt it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a great point and frankly there is legal precedent somewhere (he said while searching furiously) that CA's don't have to have proof of mailing either. Some judges will take them at their word, and won't think twice about it. However, sending 3 DV requests and contesting the assumption that the letter was sent counts very heavily in your favor.

Edited March 30, 2005 by CramItCCCAs