Attorney claims FDCPA doesn't include validation "mecha

[johnransom]

I got a verification letter today from a collection attorney which contains the following text:

In response to your letter of September 23, I have obtained verification from Pulaski Bank of your credit card debt owed to the Bank. Enclosed are copies of all of the monthly statements on your account dating back to May, 2001, showing the charges on the account that make up the current balance. Please note that, while the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides for verification of debts in some circumstances, it does not provide a mechanism for validating or invalidating debts as your letter seems to imply.

With this were enclosed the account statements he mentions. I get the feeling this guy has never dealt with this process before, based on this letter and a previous phone message saying he was confused.

Confused is right - unless I am being totally dense, aren't verification and validation the same thing? And what does he mean by "in some circumstances"? Such as when the consumer demands it? And of course the account statements are absolutely insufficient verification anyway.

This same attorney, BTW, uses his personal letterhead but supposedly actually is an employee of the bank, which makes the bank a debt collector under the FDCPA's definition. Since I also got a letter from the bank today asking for payment, I may be owed $1K.

How should I respond to this twerp?

[LadynRed]

Verification and Validation are NOT the same thing. Verification is just them verifying your name address, etc. Validation is them PROVING the debt is yours, and proving the amount that they claim you owe. Statments back to 2001 would be tough to fight in court where a perpeonderance of evidence is all they need to nail you.

While its true that the FDCPA is vague in exactly what constitutes validation, there's case law that does define what is and is NOT validation.

Spears v. Brennan basically says the contract alone is not enough to prove the debt and neither is a stack of statements enough in and of itself.

[johnransom]

Verification and Validation are NOT the same thing. Verification is just them verifying your name address, etc. Validation is them PROVING the debt is yours, and proving the amount that they claim you owe. Statments back to 2001 would be tough to fight in court where a perpeonderance of evidence is all they need to nail you.

While its true that the FDCPA is vague in exactly what constitutes validation, there's case law that does define what is and is NOT validation.

Spears v. Brennan basically says the contract alone is not enough to prove the debt and neither is a stack of statements enough in and of itself.

OK, now it's my turn to be confused. First you say a stack of statements is hard to fight in court, then you say it doesn't prove validity by itself. Which is it?

And I still don't know what my next step should be.

[willingtocope]

I'm sure LadynRed will be back, but let me jump in...

Without putting words in her mouth, let me say that what's right, what's legal, and what the court decides are not always the same thing. While there is case law out there that says this CA did not provide sufficient validation, you may have trouble getting your local court to agree.

I would suggest that your next step would be to send this CA another CMRRR reference the Spears v. Brennan case and pointing out that they have not as yet provided the proper validation.