Debt VALIDATION under FCRA (yes, I know)

[jfaustus]

Question whether to anyone's knowledge the following has been adjudicated:

Background. An old debt, that someone runs across on their CR. Consensus is that CA or JDB doesn't have to respond to a DV. Doesn't even have to cease collection activity. So they are legally obligated ONLY to mark your TL as "disputed." (There seems to be some controversy over this, as the 1-2 punch relies on the CA's having a duty to stop collection activity after a DV even after the 30-day, but bear with me.)

So say I send a DV, get no response. No change to CR after 5 days. After 30 days, the debt shows as validated.

So I ask the CRA to provide me with the method of validation. They say they asked the CA, who validated. So piss off. Meanwhile, the CA says that after the 30 days they don't have to provide "validation" as defined by the FDCPA. So piss off.

BUT, the standard set out in the FCPA for retaining a disputed item is that it be verified: "If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any

information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to

be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified..." 611(5)(A). Could "verified" under the FCPA be the same standard as "validated" under the FDCPA? In other words, could one argue that the CA or JDB needs to provide to the CRA the same level of proof they are required to provide to consumers?

Thanks,

jfaustus

[gypsie]

One could definately argue that by saying interpretation is individual, and we all have tried to read things within the FCRA and FDCPA to go our way.... but the ugly fact is...

FCRA's "verified" only means the furnishers basically have to say yes or no to a debt that they list as a TL on a credit report- and that's it. There's nothing stated in the FCRA beyond that - as unfair as that seems. Although this can also work to our advantage- in that if we can provide proof in a dispute then our "no" to their "yes" usually is sufficient.

The FDCPA is more specific as to what includes validation which works to our- the consumer's advantage- holding the CAs/JDBs to produce proof to the consumer.

The wording is what it is...

[jestor1776]

Jaufastus,

Unfortunately, the FDCPA can only do so much. It provides consumers with remedies at law, to go after the DC/CA for unfair collection practices however, the FDCPA cannot on it's own arbitrarily cause a debt collector to cease and desist collection activity if the debt collector chooses to ignore the FDCPA. You can have all the laws you want, and if someone chooses to ignore them then you have no other choice by to involve the courts. That is where you will obtain remedy for the unfair collection practices of CA/DC's. I'm not saying this to be a smart a$$, however, there are people that somehow think that just because the law says don't do it, that those violating it will just stop. I wish it were that simple! Just be persistent and always respond to CA letters. If you want remedy, you know what you need to do.

FM

[MadinKS]

You may try another approach. In Kansas, under the consumer protection laws, there is a statute that provides a consumer the right to have a valid assignment document sent to them before they are obligated to pay the assignee (JDB/CA). If no document is sent, the consumer is only obligated to the OC and may pay the OC until such time as the assignment documentation is sent to the consumer. You might want to research your state statute w/regards to consumer protection and see if they have something similar. Here is the KS statute.

16a-3-203. (UCCC) Notice of assignment. The consumer is authorized to pay the original creditor until he receives notification of assignment of rights to payment pursuant to a consumer credit transaction and that payment is to be made to the assignee. A notification which does not reasonably identify the rights assigned is ineffective. If requested by the consumer, the assignee must seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the assignment has been made and unless he does so the consumer may pay the original creditor.

[divemedic]

Background. An old debt, that someone runs across on their CR. Consensus is that CA or JDB doesn't have to respond to a DV. Doesn't even have to cease collection activity. So they are legally obligated ONLY to mark your TL as "disputed." (There seems to be some controversy over this, as the 1-2 punch relies on the CA's having a duty to stop collection activity after a DV even after the 30-day, but bear with me.)

It seems like I have to explain this at least once a week. For some reason, it confuses people.

A collection agency does not have to respond to a timely DV. If they do not respond, and the DV was timely, they must cease all collection activity. If they do not cease all collection activity, they have violated.

Collection activity includes reporting to the CRA. That is how the 1-2 punch works. You get them to violate the law by failing to cease collection activity after receiving a timely DV letter.

If the DV is not timely, there is no requirement for the CA to respond at all, nor is there a requirement for them to cease collection activity. With these guys, you go at it from a different direction. Remember that the FDCPA requires the CA to refrain from any unfair or deceptive practices when collecting a debt.

Keeping that in mind, you comb through all of the information you have and catch them in a lie, or catch them doing something else illegal. This becomes an unfair practice, and thus a violation of the FDCPA.

Even a wrong listing on your CR is a violation of the FDCPA, and if they verify the incorrect TL as correct with the CRA, they just violated the FCRA as well.