Section 1692g(b) Vs. Wollman letter

[SamIam]

Doing a little study here and would like to get some thoughts on this. It appears these two statements are different.

First the Wollman opinion letter, it is the FTC's opinion that a mere itemization is not sufficiant, yet doesnt clearly state what is

Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

Now lets look at section 1692g( Validation of debt

1692g

( Disputed debts

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Heres what this says about a CA sending Validation of a debt, from what Im reading they can validate several different ways:

1)until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment,

lets forget about the judgement part, but from reading this, the debt collector obtains "verification" Yet still, what constitutes verification?

2) or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment,

So they can choose also to send the verification and the name and address of the OC

Now heres the bad news

3) or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector

From reading a CA's 3rd option, it appears that all they need to do is just send the name and address of the OC.. thats it, thats all it says they need to do.

So I beg the question again, It doesnt appear to me that the Wollman letter would carry much weight

If I am interpreting section 1692g( wrong, please chime in and let me know.

[Pale Rider]

This was discussed before, but I don't know if I would be able to find the link.

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Try reading it like this

If the consumer notifies the debt collector .....that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed,

Or

the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor

Then

the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt

Or

the name and address of the original creditor,

If you dispute the debt, they must validate.

If you ask for the name and address, they must provide it.

2 different requests with 2 different responses.

The Wollman letter gives us an idea of what does not constitute validation per the opinion of the FTC.

Spears vs Brennan tells us that a contract alone is not validation, that there must be an accounting of the payments interest and fees. http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html