Jump to content

What's required for validation?


Donna47129
 Share

Recommended Posts

(B) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is your dispute?

Here's as short as a story as I can fit it:

OC=Providian sold account to Aspire when it was in past due status (we moved-bills got missed), may have been 2002.

Aspire enrolled us in a program whereas as long as we made a payment they would not charge any late fees or OL fees. Payment was $21.00.

After 4 months of this arrangement they began assessing LCs and OLs again. I called CS who said that they didn't show that we were enrolled in the program. She said that she would make sure we were enrolled this time. Again, after 4 more months they started the fees back up. (I have the reports they sent me today showing these payments and fees) Again, CS said I wasn't enrolled in any program. We got pissed and said as long as you are going to keep adding fees that you promised you wouldn't we aren't going to make more payments unless you send it in writing. Never heard from Aspire again. They wrote it off and never reported on our CR.

Last month J.A. Cambece dunns us and says he's collecting for Midland Credit. I have never heard of Midland Credit nor the "fact" that they now own the debt. MCM never dunned us. I did however, search their rep out on the net!:shock:

So, I DV the "attorney". The day after he receives the DV Midland reports the line to TU. So, I DV Midland. Two days later they report to Experian & Equifax.

Not only that, they have re-aged the account. According to the CRAs the line is set for reporting until 2013. With the real date it would fall off around 2009 or 2010.

Not to mention that Cambece is not a Indiana attorney. So my dispute it that I have no agreement with Midland. I had a dispute with Aspire and their broken promises and terrible customer service.

I will not pay Midland. I was trying to do the right thing by Aspire and they messed that up. Midland and Cambece can <X*> They are doing everything possible to mess up our credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donna,

In response to your question. A demand for verification and validation is not only the name, address, amount of the debt, name of the original creditor, even though these four things mentioned are ALL that is required from the FDCPA statute as written. In order for a CA/DC to have standing to collect on a debt, they MUST prove that they are the proper parties to be re-paid the money. The only way that can be determined, is if the party claiming to be due payment- (i.e.- CA/DC), is a good faith showing that they are the "holder in due course" of the original promissory note/ agreement- i.e.- Credit card agreement etc. Which of course will prove to be 99.9% of the time impossible to prove. You see, the FDCPA does protect the "least sophistcated consumer" from unscrupulous and predatory CA/DC tactics, to an extent! BUT, the language of the actual FDCPA ACT of 1692 et. seq. Does not prevent a CA/DC from pursueing the collection of an alleged debt IF they provide to the consumer a written verification of the above four things as found within the body of the ACT. It will be up to the court or jury to decide based upon properly pleaded arguments and evidence if in fact the CA/DC was/is/are the proper party to be re-paid the money, which of course they will not be able to prove, because the don't have possession of the original agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be up to the court or jury to decide based upon properly pleaded arguments and evidence if in fact the CA/DC was/is/are the proper party to be re-paid the money, which of course they will not be able to prove, because the don't have possession of the original agreement.

Thank you!!

I figured that, but thanks for confirming! That's one of my problems and disputes, all I know are that these guys are scum of the industry, so why should I pay them if they don't show me proof that they own my debt?

THANKS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Donna,

At least you are intellegent enough to even figure that out! MOST people haven't a clue what is ir is not required of the debt collection racket. Mainly because of poor education on the subject of money and banking. If you need any help drafting complaints or court process I can be of help, although you WILL need to refer to your state's rules of court.

hope to be of assisstance!

Bless you!

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.