Partial Validation

[Creddylad]

I sent a validation letter to United Resource System requesting validation. It was mailed on 6/18, they got it on 6/22. On 7/12, after a year of not reporting to the CB's they listed me as delinquent not in dispute as they should have.

They sent a letter back dated 7/16 stating that the account had been placed with them and this is what I owed. The accompanying documentation was no more than the front page of a loan. With 'this communication, blah, blah, blah...this is an attempt to collect a debt, blah, blah, blah...', stamped all over it.

I had originally requested, what the debt was for, how they arrived at the amount that they stated i owed, copies of any papers, proof the sol hadn't run out, proof of licensing in my state (which they aren't, at least not according to the Arizona Corporation Commission), complete payment history and the original loan agreement.

The only thing they sent was the front page of a multi-page loan. It even says on the bottom that there is more on the reverse.

I've been trying all night to write a response, but all of the response letters I've found have to do with no response at all. How do you tackle a partial one. Do I send them a second request for the info with, say, a 15 day time frame? Bash them over the heads with the FDCPA laws they have broken and threaten litigation? Demand they remove the debt completely?

Help!!!

[nascar]

Did they provide you with some type of assurance that they contacted the creditor to verify that the amount they are trying to collect is what the creditor claims you owe them?

If so, you got your validation.

[swtguy]

The front page of a (promissory) note is meaningless as validation. If they're going to send a note as part of a validation, they must send a copy of the entire note; otherwise, they have not demonstrated that you ever had a commitment.

I would adapt one of the failure to respond to DV letters here and state that they were non-responsive.

[IHateCAs]

There is no such thing as partial validation. Just like there's no such thing as "very pregnant".

It's either properly verified or not.

Does it pass the Guerrero v RJM Acquisitions test?

GUERRERO v RJM ACQUISITIONS The only information disclosed in the letter was the date that the account was opened, the date that the last payment was posted, the name and social security number listed on the account, and the current balance. The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred.

[nascar]

The front page of a (promissory) note is meaningless as validation. If they're going to send a note as part of a validation, they must send a copy of the entire note; otherwise, they have not demonstrated that you ever had a commitment.

Taking your point a little further - the mere existence of an agreement does not prove that a balance is still owed upon it.

[Creddylad]

Ok so here's the letter I came up with. How does it look?

Me

My address

Date: July 23, 2007

Credit agency

address

Re: Acct Ref. # xxxxxxxxx

Date:

RE: Dispute Letter of June 18, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is a formal notice that you have failed to respond to my dispute letter of xxxxxxxx. I sent this letter registered mail and have enclosed proof that it was delivered to your agency on xxxxxxxx. By your lack of providing the requested information to prove the existence of a debt, it can considered as a either a refusal outright or misrepresentation of the debt to the credit bureaus. Either way you have not properly validated it.

Just as a clarification, according to the FTC, a full validation of a debt must include both a signed contract (in it's entirety) AND a full and complete accounting of a debt. This information must come directly from the original creditor, and it must be newly compiled information. You can reference case law on the FTC website, and by going to the following links:

1-http://www.ftc.gov/os/statues/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

2-http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html

You must:

Prove the statue of limitations has not run out.

Show me your are licensed to collect in my state.

Provide me with your license numbers and the name of your Registered Agent

Proof that you either own, or have been assigned the debt. (Just stating that the account was placed with you is not enough. You must provide the documentation)

Show a complete payment history starting with the original creditor.

Provide a copy of the entire original contract.

Please respond completely will all items requested within 15 days of receipt. If I do not receive a satisfactory response within that time frame I will assume lack of validation and you will have 3 days to remove the listing from the bureaus.

If you fail to comply completely with the above requests, I will have to consider legal proceedings against your agency for several violations of the FDCPA. May I direct your attention to the court case of TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, which has already set a precedent for a similar case here in Arizona.

Sincerely

me

Any suggestions?

[nascar]

The CA knows that what you are asking for is not required.

By sending that letter, they'll only be further convinced that you don't.

[IHateCAs]

Don't quote things you don't understand. I'm not a doctor and I'm not going to tell people how to perform a triple bypass.

[Creddylad]

Wow that's really helpful. Obviously I don't know the nitty gritty of this stuff. That's why I was asking for help. Geeze, havn't you ever heard the old saying, 'If you can't be nice...'

According to this very site they are required to provide:

* Proof that the collection company owns the debt/or has been assigned the debt. This requirement was established by the case Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber and Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072, 7th Circuit Court, Sept 2004..

* Copy of the original signed loan agreement or credit card application. However, account statements from the original can fulfill these requirements.

Are you telling me the people that built one of the biggest credit repair sites on the internet, don't know what they are talking about?

I'm asking for the proof of licensing because they are not listed as being licensed to collect in my state.

So please, tell me what part am I getting wrong? Is it the time frames? They've already had 30 days. I'm providing an acceptable time frame to reply. I'm telling them if they do not that I will begin legal proceedings for violations that I have proof of.

[Creddylad]

PS. To those that originally replied to my questions, thank you. I did not mean to come off as terse as I did.

[nascar]

Are you telling me the people that built one of the biggest credit repair sites on the internet, don't know what they are talking about?

Do some independent research and draw your own conclusions.

The Fields case in no way applies to what we are calling "proper validation" and here is why. Proper validation is defined under 15 U.S.C. 1692g(. You'll find NO mention of 1692g( in that opinion. If the case doesn't even refer to that section of the act, why would anyone assume that the decision applies to it?

You simply cannot pull unrelated discussion from one case and apply it to a different set of facts and call it case law. It's like getting caught speeding in a school zone and alleging as a defense that you can drive 70 on the Interstate. There is lots of misleading information floating around - it's best to check your sources.

[Creddylad]

Whoops. Damn I really need to not write when I'm in a hurry. There is a bullet point missing in the middle of that.

Should have said:

At a minimum, some account statements from the original creditor. If you really want to get sticky, you can pin them down on the amount of the debt by requiring complete payment history, starting with the original creditor. (and then reference the fields case.

I've re-written the letter, acknowledging that some of them are not required. But that there are several cases that have sent precedent for them being provided.

Here's the main body:

This letter is a formal notice that you have failed to respond to my dispute letter of June 18, 2007. I sent this letter registered mail and have enclosed proof that it was delivered to your agency on June 22, 2007.

Sending a photocopy of the front of the loan is not proof that the loan still exists. And to my recollection the debt has been paid in full.

Please provide me with documentation:

• That you own, or have been assigned the debt.
  
• Show a complete payment history. (To prove the debt still exists)
  
• Show me how your agency arrived at the figure you are requesting.
  
• Show me you are licensed to do business in my state.
  

I realize that not all of the requested documentation is 'required'. However, there are a large number of legal proceedings that have set precedent for providing them.

Please respond to my request within 15 days of receipt with the above requested documentation. If you are not able to provide it, please provide confirmation within 5 days after the 15 day time frame that you have notified the credit bureaus to remove the listing.

-------

I keep pushing for the licensing thing because Arizona says they are NOT licensed to collect here.

I do have the lawsuit documentation ready to go once the 20 days are up.