Can someone explain why CA shoudl get 30-days to validate?

[ms6073]

Let me start by mentioning that this post is as much an observation as it is a question, and so I hope this is not listed in an FAQ somewherre or possibly discussed in a "sticky" posts at the top of one of the boards. Having read and on occasion posted on the various credit related forums over the past 6-7 months, I have always been curious to discover how/where the 30-day time line when a request for validation from a CA when a debt is disputed came from?

Now I realize that the CAs are required to include a disclaimor as part of all written communication explaining consumers rights afforded by the FDCPA including the "within 30-days" clause that gives consumers the right to dispute the validity of a debt. I also seem to recall that someone once related that the time frame for a CA's validation period to the statues that compel a CRA to investigate a dispute of information on a consumer's credit file within 30-days as well as allowing an additional 5-days to return the results to the consumer. So can someone point me to a statute, FTC opinion, or case law that implies that outlines why we should even allow the CA a period of 30-days to validate a debt?

Seems to me that since CAs often begin collection activities with some form of demand for payment within XX-days (usually 5), then why is it that everyone is so magnanimous and allows the CA up to 30-days to prove the validity of a debt? Unless there is some legally binding statute that extends such timelines to the CA, I think it is time to streamline these requests for validation. Afterall, the CAs often want the consumer to make payment in full on an alleged debt within 5-days of the initial communication - so why cant the consumer demand that that the CA prove that a legally binding obligation to pay a debt does indeed exists within 5-days of reciept of that consumers written dispute?

Michael

[Pale Rider]

If the CA asks for payment within xx days that would be shorter than 30 days to request validation, they have violated FDCPA.

I'm not sure if you can ask for validation in less than 30 days, but they must respond within 30 days in Texas.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/fi/fi0039200.html#fi004.392.201

[nolo]

ms6073,

The FDCPA does not require that CA's validate within 30 days of a demand for validation. However, some state laws may provide time limits.

[ms6073]

ms6073,

The FDCPA does not require that CA's validate within 30 days of a demand for validation. However, some state laws may provide time limits.

Thank you, that was kind of the point I was trying to make! Although the FRCA specifically defines the period of time in which a CRA has to investigate information that is in dispute, neither the FRCA nor the FDCPA specifies or implies a timeline for 3rd party collection agencys. So why are we being so generous? I think it is time to get more aggressive and start demanding validation or deletion with more immediate timelines - 10-15 days from date of reciept of letter that disputes and request validation of a debt!

Michael

[jam]

I have not seen a letter which said you must pay within x days. at least the initial letter.

However, here is a reason why CAs have to have at LEAST 30 days to validate the account.

Under the Wollman opinion, the CA can not use what information they have on file to answer the validation request, they have to contact the OC directly, and get that information directly from them.

This process can take a long time depending on the CA and the OC...

The only way to box the CA into a 30 day time period is if they have already began reporting, then you can initiate a CRA verification upon receipt of the validation request, then they can't respond to the verification without providing the validation, or violating the FDCPA.