Debt Validation Primer

[someonesomewhere]

Debt Validation, DV, is perhaps the most potent weapon you the consumer has. Read about it and use it. Read Kristy's DV flowchart, and follow it. Read this post by Methuss on the 1-2 Punch. It's the best synopsis I've found. Incidentally, Kristy's DV flowchart essentially steps you thru a 1-2 Punch.

There are a number of DV form letters here and elsewhere. Ignore them. Something simple works best.

"You claim that I owe you a debt. In accordance with FDCPA, send me validation of this debt."

"I pulled my credit report, and I discovered you claim I owe you a debt. In accordance with § 809 of FDCPA, send me validation of this debt."

"I receive your letter in which you claim I owe you a debt. Per the FDCPA, send me validation of this debt."

Send the letter CMRRR, save your CM receipt, save your RRR green card when it comes back, save your USPS receipt (which has the CM # on it), and save a photocopy of your signed DV letter. Include a reference line at the top of your letter.

USPS CERTIFIED MAIL xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Do NOT use the words "cease and desist" in your letter. There's no such thing as a limited C&D, and if you say C&D they are probably going to comply by ceasing and desisting. They will likely tell a judge (should it ever get that far) that they were told to C&D so they did. That's why they sued you and why they didn't validate. Don't screw yourself out of catching them in violation.

Read The Revised Credit Repair primer. Post #2 describes how you can achieve the net effect of a "limited C&D", but again, NEVER use the words "cease and desist" in a DV letter. If they ignore your DV letter, and continue communicating, that's a violation of law. You want them to violate the law. That helps you.

[someonesomewhere]

Couple of afterthoughts.

DV is for a CA, not an OC. That said, before I knew any better, I DVed a couple of OCs and got 2 deletes.

On one, I was an AU so I could have disputed this and gotten it removed in the course of things anyway. Other was from a bank that had been bought up by HSBC, and perhaps they didn't have the records to substantiate it.

I won't say NEVER DV an OC, but do understand that if you DV an OC there is no statute to back you up should the TL remain on your CRs.

Save everything you get from a CA or OC, and save a copy of every letter you send.

[Drew]

I agree with all that, but it doesn't help us folks dealing with OC's who are still handling the account.

[kashta]

I have a debt to an alarm company. A few months ago it was given to a collection agency that I never paid, the guy got real nasty with me on the phone and I never responded to him. Nothing was reported to any of the 3 major credit bureaus at that time and I have checked as recent as about february or march. I received a phone call from a new different collection agency (Professional Recovery Systems, L.L.C.) last week stating that they had purchased the debt and tried to arrange payment from me. I told them that they need to provide me with the original contract that I signed before I can discuss anything. Tonight, I recieved a letter in the mail from them stating that they purchased the debt, and the letter included:

the name of the alarm company

the original account number

their account number

the charge off date of the debt

and the amount due

In addition to this they attached the original contract with my signatue to the letter.

Does this suffice as debt validation, and if so what are my options?

[someonesomewhere]

Since it's a new company, DV them.

[Amerikaner83]

is there anything that says "crap collections is authorized to collect on this account"? thay can make up acct #s and such.....pull them out of their a$$ if they want to...but they DO have your original signature with it eh? hmmmmm that's not the best news...I'll defer to anyone more experienced than I (read: ANYONE!) on this one...

But I'll watch with keen interest...I'm DVing CAs tomorrow, sending the letters out then

[divemedic]

Your signature is not always required for DV.

[WISC47]

I followed some of the links in the original post and it seems that to qualify for validation you have to send the DV to the CA within 30 days. Can you still do it after the 30 days has passed and what if the CA then fails to validate? Can you still sue?

[someonesomewhere]

Pertinent statutes are FDCPA § 809(a) and 809(.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/FDCPA.shtml#809

Violations under (a) are for the initial written notice. You can sue over that even if you don't DV, or if you DV and they either FOAD or validate.

Violations under ( can only be collected if you timely DV. However, don't let that stop you from DVing a CA after the initial 30 day period. Others have reported both success and failure with a DV letter outside the 30 day window. It's worth it to try because the CA might just FOAD.

In direct answer to your question, no, you cannot sue for a violation under FDCPA if you send an untimely DV letter. That said, Texas law requires CAs to validate even OUTSIDE the 30 day window. Other states may have similar provisions, but Texas is the only one I know of.

[HadEnough]

Couple of afterthoughts.

DV is for a CA, not an OC.

'My OC' is a hospital and it denied the information that it's CA was persuing

against me on the phone.

So, I sent the hospital a demand for records. Mentioning specifically that I was interested in accounting documents, under 'HPIAA - patients access to medical records rules.'

The CA still hasn't complied with my DV but the hospital responded within 3-4 days.

[someonesomewhere]

The CA still hasn't complied with my DV but the hospital responded within 3-4 days.

Is the CA still calling and writing after you timely DVed them? If so, that's a violation. Follow the DV flowchart.

[HadEnough]

Is the CA still calling and writing after you timely DVed them? If so, that's a violation. Follow the DV flowchart.

Yes there are.

However, the flowchart isn't applicable to me. My situation's less clear cut.

My original 'DV' was over year ago. They quit sending letters & I thought they

had discovered an error in their accounting & dropped the issue.

( Dumb, from what I now know. However I think most people start out believing in 'good faith.')

What they actually did, was immediately put it on my TL. By the time I found out almost a year later, I was outside the standard timeline parameters.

So although they (IMO, intentionally) denied me my rights to dispute with the OC, I'm sure that there position is, that I forfieted my rights to dispute.

I DV'd 'em again and have followed the flowchart. Except that I hold the OC equally responsible for sending the debts. to collection without even sending the bills to me first. (Yes, I also didn't read the Medical Collections stickey till

later in the game. )

Anyway, my post was just to point out that even if you can't DV OC's, you may have other, (even tougher) angles to attack the OCs with.

[someonesomewhere]

Cass letter is a good read on DV. In fact, there are several FTC Staff Letters that address FDCPA §809.

[dansocon]

So, as I read this, DV has to do with responding to a CA. We have 30 days to send a DV to them after being contacted.

What if there are old debts in a Credit Report, but the CAs haven't contacted us in years. What does that mean with respect to the debt validation period?

Or am I misreading this?

[someonesomewhere]

So, as I read this, DV has to do with responding to a CA. We have 30 days to send a DV to them after being contacted.

That is correct. The only exception I know of is Texas where an equivalent state law gives one the right to DV anytime, even if it's paid.

What if there are old debts in a Credit Report, but the CAs haven't contacted us in years. What does that mean with respect to the debt validation period?

Unfortunately, once you're beyond the 30 days, DV no longer carries the weight of law. However, here are a few things to consider.

CAs keep notoriously bad records. Some have gotten better in recent years as consumers have gotten smarter. As such, a lot in here, myself included, generally recommend you DV old unpaid, and even paid, collections. Some CAs will just give up and go away. If it's too old to sue, they figure "this guy knows his rights. No money there."

A number of people have reported DVing old collections, and the CA deleting without ever responding. Although others report CAs refusing to validate or sending validation that frankly does not seem even remotely adequate.

Personally, before I knew any better, I DVed two OCs, and both deleted.

[dansocon]

Thanks for your response. I've been reading through these forums and like your direct approaches.

My wife has a bunch of medical CAs. They are mainly around 3-4 years old.

Experian shows the most (14). Would it be best to do them all at once, i.e. 14 in one letter to the CRA or should it be broken up?

[someonesomewhere]

My wife has a bunch of medical CAs. They are mainly around 3-4 years old.

For medical collections, be sure to read up on the Pintos decision. Very recent Ninth Circuit caselaw that could be useful with things not connected with a credit transaction.

Experian shows the most (14). Would it be best to do them all at once, i.e. 14 in one letter to the CRA or should it be broken up?

Umm, we're talking about DV, right? You don't DV the CRAs. You DV the CA.

[dansocon]

Yes. Thanks. I understand that. I am thinking the one-two punch, so am working on both.

Thanks for the decision citation.

[someonesomewhere]

If you DV, and the CA doesn't delete, and doesn't respond with validation, now what?

Well, if your DV was timely, that's a violation. You can sue under FDCPA.

If your DV was not timely, you can still follow up with a written dispute to the CRA and include copies of all your DV paperwork. If you saved your RRR green card, CM receipt, USPS receipt (which has the CM # on it), and a copy of your DV letter, you can photocopy everything onto one sheet of paper. Copy of the DV letter on one side, everything else on the back. Include that single sheet copy of everything (SSCoE) in your written dispute to the CRA.

Send a follow up DV to the CA and include a SSCoE from your dispute letter to the CRA.

Body shot.

Uppercut.

Body shot.

Uppercut.

It's a battle, and you have to fight.