admin

New debt validation flowchart

Recommended Posts

I like it!

Just a couple small things. How about contacting the OC's executive offices and offering a "pay for delete" after the CA validates? Yes, it depends on the amount, the creditor, the age, etc., but sometimes the OC says "o.k." and recalls the collection. I've found this to be especially true with medical collections using the "confusing billing" cry letter.

Along those lines, how about checking the SOL (and state laws to see if the CA can even collect) - instead of sending a DV, you send a letter demanding deletion.

Just a thought....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like it!

Just a couple small things. How about contacting the OC's executive offices and offering a "pay for delete" after the CA validates? Yes, it depends on the amount, the creditor, the age, etc., but sometimes the OC says "o.k." and recalls the collection. I've found this to be especially true with medical collections using the "confusing billing" cry letter.

Along those lines, how about checking the SOL (and state laws to see if the CA can even collect) - instead of sending a DV, you send a letter demanding deletion.

Just a thought....

I'll see what I can do... :) I was trying to fit it on one page.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll see what I can do... :) I was trying to fit it on one page.

We could technically put every scenario in the chart and make it 6 pages by 6 pages :?

If it won't fit, then it's not worth it - it's understandable the way it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the thirty day time frame is the time frame the debtor has to dispute the bill in writing. Nowhere in the FDCPA does it state that the agency has only thirty days to validate the debt. If the agency ceases collection efforts and it takes them sixty days to validate, they are still in compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, the thirty day time frame is the time frame the debtor has to dispute the bill in writing. Nowhere in the FDCPA does it state that the agency has only thirty days to validate the debt. If the agency ceases collection efforts and it takes them sixty days to validate, they are still in compliance.

CA SUM! The 30 days is considered sufficient time to do your job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, the thirty day time frame is the time frame the debtor has to dispute the bill in writing. Nowhere in the FDCPA does it state that the agency has only thirty days to validate the debt. If the agency ceases collection efforts and it takes them sixty days to validate, they are still in compliance.

You're right. There is no timeframe for the CA to validate. They cannot, however, pursue the collection until proper validation is presented.

Likewise, there is no 30-day timeframe for a debtor to dispute the debt. The FDCPA says failure to do so will allow the CA to "assume the debt is valid". Big deal. I assume there's life on other planets - doesn't mean anything. The FDCPA also states that failure to dispute a collection does not indicate an admission of liability.

So, a debtor can request validation whenever they want. The FDCPA does not say the debtor relinquishes their rights to validation after 30 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, the thirty day time frame is the time frame the debtor has to dispute the bill in writing. Nowhere in the FDCPA does it state that the agency has only thirty days to validate the debt. If the agency ceases collection efforts and it takes them sixty days to validate, they are still in compliance.

You're right. There is no timeframe for the CA to validate. They cannot, however, pursue the collection until proper validation is presented.

Likewise, there is no 30-day timeframe for a debtor to dispute the debt. The FDCPA says failure to do so will allow the CA to "assume the debt is valid". Big deal. I assume there's life on other planets - doesn't mean anything. The FDCPA also states that failure to dispute a collection does not indicate an admission of liability.

So, a debtor can request validation whenever they want. The FDCPA does not say the debtor relinquishes their rights to validation after 30 days.

Damn Doc, you are much too calm..... :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn Doc, you are much too calm..... :wink:

Well, when you train a new hire on the FDCPA as a collector, these things tend to happen. Not a big deal really. We've had people come in and spout off about how they know this and that - they move on eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn Doc, you are much too calm..... :wink:

Well, when you train a new hire on the FDCPA as a collector, these things tend to happen. Not a big deal really. We've had people come in and spout off about how they know this and that - they move on eventually.

Point well taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that you didn't find information on sending a dispute letter to the CRAs. 90% of the threads discuss that very topic. :?

All you have to do is dispute the entries. There is no legal jargon or official letter to do this. Simply, dispute the entries (never late, not 30 days late on xx/xxxx, balance should be $xxx, do not recognize this creditor, etc). You can send them via USPS, or do it online.

:)%

Link to post
Share on other sites

AWESOME!!! action-smiley-033.gif Thank you SO much! I'm more a 'visual' person and this is great!! I just posted in my thread on the BK Board to LadynRed about what to do, and this just answered part of my problem.

http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20033&start=15

Verizon, Allied Interstate and ALL CRA's!! violent-smiley-072.gif ME!!! :twothumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

superrev is correct. The CA does not have to do anything.

Look at item 3 of the Cass letter:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

So here is how you beat them:

After you get the green card back, pull your CR and request investigation from the CRA. Then, this forces the CA to either re-report (a Violation) or allow deletion for lack of response to the investigation (a win).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they verify to the CRA after the first DV wothout validating to the consumer, and then do it again, this make a better case for willful as opposed to negligent non-compliance. This allows for a better case should you sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.