Untimley Validation

[PCS]

Does anyone have a FTC opinion letter or court cases that states if you do not get a collection letter but notice a collection on your credit report you still have the right to validate the debt and the CA can not verify with the CRAs' unless they validate with you?

I have read the FDCPA, many FTC opinion letters and much more. Everything I see about validation it states that 30 day period after recieving a dunning letter. I have not found anything that states you can validate at anytime and the CA can not proceed with collection activity if it is an untimley validation.

Thanks for your help!

[MadMonkey]

Actually its not necessarily a letter.

For example, on more then one occassion I pulled my credit report and found CA listed on there that I know for a fact I never recieved a letter from. I just DV'd the CRA and the TL went away.

Its very, very common for CA's to TL people without sending out letters. They all seem to have some magical formula they use to ascertain who is more able to pay out on a first strike then others. When I was at my worst, there was no way anyone could get a dime out of me. That's why they just report it and move on to the next victim they think they can get money out of.

The rule of thumb is that you DV within thirty days of getting a letter or pulling a report and finding a CA or CO on there. Your 30 safety net starts at that point.

[admin]

Just to clarify - things are a little confusing regarding which statute these scumbags are violating...so let me try and reiterate.

You can only DV debt validate a CA, and if a CA continutes to report without proper debt validation, they are in violation of the FDCPA ONLY. They are in violation because they are technically continuing collection activity (reporting on your credit report) without proper validation.

To confuse things, you can cite FCRA violations from a CA IF you request an investigation per the FCRA § 623. (a)(8) ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH FURNISHER. However, you have to be careful with the wording in your request.

1. If you use the word validate in your request - you are citing your rights under the FDCPA.

2. If you use the word verify - you should be writing a letter to the credit bureaus.

3. If you use the word investigation you are requesting that they investigate a negative listing under FCRA § 623. (a)(8). You can request an investigation from either a CA or OC - IF they are reporting negative information on your credit report.

For more info on requesting an investigation: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/repair/DisputingWithOriginalCreditor.shtml.

[lolah]

Actually its not necessarily a letter.

For example, on more then one occassion I pulled my credit report and found CA listed on there that I know for a fact I never recieved a letter from. I just DV'd the CRA and the TL went away.

Its very, very common for CA's to TL people without sending out letters. They all seem to have some magical formula they use to ascertain who is more able to pay out on a first strike then others. When I was at my worst, there was no way anyone could get a dime out of me. That's why they just report it and move on to the next victim they think they can get money out of.

The rule of thumb is that you DV within thirty days of getting a letter or pulling a report and finding a CA or CO on there. Your 30 safety net starts at that point.

You have 30 days from "initial communication". I am sure others will pipe in if I am wrong, but if the collection is recent (within the last 30 days) and they did not send you a letter, recent collection activity on your CR can be considered "initial communicaiton".

[nascar]

... they did not send you a letter, recent collection activity on your CR can be considered "initial communicaiton".

There are opinions on both sides of this question. Some jurisdictions have held that posting data to a credit report constitutes "communication" in connection with collection of a debt while others have held that the since the "communication" was not directly with a consumer, the FDCPA notice requirement is not triggered. The majority of opinions seem to favor the latter - providing information to a credit reporting agency does not constitute a communication with the consumer which would require the 1692g(a) notice.

The interpretation that applies to you will depend on which circuit you live in.

[lolah]

There are opinions on both sides of this question. Some jurisdictions have held that posting data to a credit report constitutes "communication" in connection with collection of a debt while others have held that the since the "communication" was not directly with a consumer, the FDCPA notice requirement is not triggered. The majority of opinions seem to favor the latter - providing information to a credit reporting agency does not constitute a communication with the consumer which would require the 1692g(a) notice.

The interpretation that applies to you will depend on which circuit you live in.

So, basically you are screwed of your rights if the CA doesn't send you a letter? This happened to me...they obviously have access to my CR and my current address. But, I received nothing.

(Just venting - not aimed toward you, Nascar...)

[nascar]

So, basically you are screwed of your rights if the CA doesn't send you a letter?

No, not at all. I didn't mean to convey that impression. Your DV rights under FDCPA are intact until your 30 day window expires. The CA cannot avoid the FDCPA by not sending you a letter. If a CA is furnishing data to a CRA and has sent nothing to you, you have a right to request validation under 1692g(.

This was addressed recently - in a backwards sort of way - in a case out of Arizona. Apparently, the particular wording used in a certain Arizona statute somehow forbids a CA from sending a 1692g(a) notice to a debtor if the debtor requests DV first. The collector was trying to say that since the debtor essentially struck first, they were foreclosed from complying with the FDCPA notice requirement. Of course, the court held that federal law preempted state law, thus allowing the CA to send the notice. In short, there is nothing that precludes the debtor from "striking first" if a CA or JDB furnishes data to a CRA without sending anything to you.

[PCS]

This is a question that I have not been able to get a solid answer on. I have not found anything that states in the law that you can validate at anytime. The FDCPA and every FTC opinion I have read still talks about having 30 days from the day of first contact via a dunning letter or a colection call. I agree with everyone that CA will put trade lines on your credit report without sending you the dunning letter. But then we have that situation where we can not prove they never sent a collection letter becuase all they must do is prove they have the capability to send them out.

This site has taught me so much. I have just recently got married and my wife has quit a few collection and I am going to use this knowlege to help her. We have disputed with the credit bureaus and allot came off, but we just DV'd the remaining 10 and I plan to take it as far as I need to. I will go as far as sueing in smalls claim court.

I am trying to avoid getting in front of the judge and the Ca attorney saying we did not have to validate becuase it was not withing the 30 day window. I hope to find something that states you can DV at anytime.

[lolah]

No, not at all. I didn't mean to convey that impression. Your DV rights under FDCPA are intact until your 30 day window expires. The CA cannot avoid the FDCPA by not sending you a letter. If a CA is furnishing data to a CRA and has sent nothing to you, you have a right to request validation under 1692g(.

This was addressed recently - in a backwards sort of way - in a case out of Arizona. Apparently, the particular wording used in a certain Arizona statute somehow forbids a CA from sending a 1692g(a) notice to a debtor if the debtor requests DV first. The collector was trying to say that since the debtor essentially struck first, they were foreclosed from complying with the FDCPA notice requirement. Of course, the court held that federal law preempted state law, thus allowing the CA to send the notice. In short, there is nothing that precludes the debtor from "striking first" if a CA or JDB furnishes data to a CRA without sending anything to you.

Thanks for the clarification. I sent an email yesterday to the CEO and am following up by CMRRR today. It's a good thing I subscribe to a credit monitoring service.

[rmuse00]

This is a question that I have not been able to get a solid answer on. I have not found anything that states in the law that you can validate at anytime. The FDCPA and every FTC opinion I have read still talks about having 30 days from the day of first contact via a dunning letter or a colection call. I agree with everyone that CA will put trade lines on your credit report without sending you the dunning letter. But then we have that situation where we can not prove they never sent a collection letter becuase all they must do is prove they have the capability to send them out.

I am trying to avoid getting in front of the judge and the Ca attorney saying we did not have to validate becuase it was not withing the 30 day window. I hope to find something that states you can DV at anytime.

I always interpreted the following to mean that the consumer does not lose their right to ask for validation if not within the 30 day window. I could be wrong. The law is a tricky thing. I still have to read and reread these documents and the minute I "think" I get it I realize I don't

FDCPA

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

( 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.

© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

[admin]

Yeah, it's a toughy, and it's been argued successfully both ways in court.

[PCS]

I was hoping for a couple court cases, a letter fron the FTC that said you can DV at any time. This is a tough question, I will continue to research and when I find something I will post it for everyone.

I beleive that you should always have the right to DV, one line of the law says that but then the next line says it must be within that 30 day window. I guess we argue the way we want and hope the judge see's it our way.

Thanks to everyone

[nascar]

I was hoping for a couple court cases, a letter fron the FTC that said you can DV at any time.

If you're hoping to find something that says the CA must respond to your DV no matter when you send it, you aren't going to find that.

[Textoy]

I could be wrong but I believe the only real, but possibly incomplete, standing for untimely DV type disputes resides under the FACTA changes to FCRA section 623. To start, FCRA section 623(a)(8)© states:

© APPLICABILITY- Subparagraphs (D) through (G) shall apply in any circumstance identified under the regulations promulgated under subparagraph (A).

Unfortunatly, the regulations of FCRA section 623(a)(8)(A) may not been established (or are intentionally being limited to those actions that only benifit the CRA/OC/JDB/CA).

(A) IN GENERAL- The Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Commission shall jointly prescribe regulations that shall identify the circumstances under which a furnisher shall be required to reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of information contained in a consumer report on the consumer, based on a direct request of a consumer.

When or maybe if, those are ever established, the requirements of FCRA sections 623(a)(8)(D) and (E) are in limbo.

(D) SUBMITTING A NOTICE OF DISPUTE- A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that--

(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;

(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and

(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

(E) DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE- After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate.

Now it becomes a question of, does the statement

DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE

in 623(a)(8)(E) only mean the CRA? Or does that include a OC/JDB/CA?

As currently written, can the consumer use these sections of the FCRA as legal standing to:

1. Contact the OC/JDB/CA for validation type information?
   
2. Hold the OC/JDB/CA to a 30 day time limit response?
   

I may be missing something, but it does not appear under section 623 that the consumer is limited to just disputing with the CRA.

[admin]

I disagree - and only because you use the word "validation".

If you are using the FCRA, the terms are "verification" and "investigation". It seems like splitting hairs, but under the FCRA information furnishers nor the CRAs are required to do "validation".

If you ask a CA for validation under the FDCPA, they don't have to do squat. Ask them for an investigation under the FCRA section you just cited and then they are forced to respond within 30 days.

[nascar]

I may be missing something, but it does not appear under section 623 that the consumer is limited to just disputing with the CRA.

That's correct. You can submit an FCRA investigation request to any furnisher of information.

[Textoy]

Then am I correct in saying,

If the consumer does not feel that his CRA dispute was properly verified then, the consumer should put together a debt verification letter to the JDB/CA (Debt investigation letter for a OC) reffering to FCRA section 623 as justification?

If what I just said is true, then it would also seem to this old brain that, from a legal standpoint, this whole untimely DV issue is resolved by that process. Now, it is also true that JDBs/CAs may ignore the law and refuse to properly verify or timely verify (ok, investigate in OC parlance) which a violation.

If this is all true, then why hasn't this been the advertized basis for doing untimely DVs?

[nascar]

If this is all true, then why hasn't this been the advertized basis for doing untimely DVs?

I would submit that it has. What you run into here, and I posted on another thread about this a few days ago, is that under the FCRA investigation, the debtor is responsible for providing information to the furnisher, sufficient to allow it to conduct a "reasonable investigation."

Most - not all, but most - people either don't have information or refuse to provide it, thinking it will give the CA some advantage it did not previously have. By refusing to provide information, the consumer lets the CA off the hook because they are then absolved of the duty to investigate. Since the type of information is not specified by statute, the CA can just about always claim they didn't receive "sufficient" information - unless you get them to commit in writing as to what they require.

[Textoy]

I understand your point in that regard. However, given the amount of conflict here around this issue, it would seem appropriate to have a sticky explaining the options. This issue, in one form or another, is replayed here daily and I see a lot of conflicting posts about it. Being able to point to a sticky would help people like you, Nascar, from having to go into details about it.

[admin]

Then am I correct in saying,

If the consumer does not feel that his CRA dispute was properly verified then, the consumer should put together a debt verification letter to the JDB/CA (Debt investigation letter for a OC) reffering to FCRA section 623 as justification?

If what I just said is true, then it would also seem to this old brain that, from a legal standpoint, this whole untimely DV issue is resolved by that process. Now, it is also true that JDBs/CAs may ignore the law and refuse to properly verify or timely verify (ok, investigate in OC parlance) which a violation.

If this is all true, then why hasn't this been the advertized basis for doing untimely DVs?

Again, I know I am just sounding like splitting hairs, but an information furnisher is not required to "verify" anything. However they must respond to a request for an investigation.

Language is very important when you are using these statutes.

[Textoy]

Interesting response. Even though I am aware of what 623(a)(8)(A) means and the content of Fed Register Vol 71, No. 55, I will drop this for now.

[lovebug5]

I'm going to throw my two cents in here, after reading the whole thread...Just in case any newbie's hit this...

When I started my repair process, I made the huge mistake of interchanging the words "validation", "verification" and "investigation". Whoops. Although in my particular situation I ended up getting around my own screw up, it's really important that people are incredibly careful when writing their letters and/or copying letters from the internet. If it doesn't fully apply to you and you can't provide the documentation needed (specifically for an investigation), don't use/copy that letter.

Just food for thought.

[PCS]

I apoligize for keeping this thread going but I agree with Textoy thia is an issue that would be great to get resolved.

I have read a number of threads on this issue and I am confused becuase I have seen a number of opinions.

I understand that a CA does not have to validate an untimley DV, but if you dispute with a CRA and the CA does not validate with you but still verify with the CRA is that a violation?

This question is based off of never getting a collection letter. I pull my credit report and see collections on it that I have never heard of.

Thank you

[lovebug5]

I apoligize for keeping this thread going but I agree with Textoy thia is an issue that would be great to get resolved.

I have read a number of threads on this issue and I am confused becuase I have seen a number of opinions.

I understand that a CA does not have to validate an untimley DV, but if you dispute with a CRA and the CA does not validate with you but still verify with the CRA is that a violation?

This question is based off of never getting a collection letter. I pull my credit report and see collections on it that I have never heard of.

Thank you

You are correct in stating that a CA does not have to respond to an untimely DV. Sometimes I get the impression that the CA's use our untimely DV letters to doodle on while they're making their intrusive phone calls. Because they don't have to respond to your letter, they can verify the account with the CRA's as many times as they would like.

HOWEVER.

If you request an investigation per your rights under Section 623 of the FCRA, they are legally obligated to respond to your investigation request within 30-days of receipt of your letter. Within your letter you must indicate your reasons for requesting the investigation and you must supply "evidence" of your reasoning. If they fail to respond to you within 30-days, provided that you gave them the necessary information with which to investigate, then you've got your violation.

(And if I'm wrong, someone will correct me.)

[PCS]

Luvbug5 Thanks for your help and to al others.

I want to make sure I understand this correctley. If I pull my credit report and see collections I have never heard of or recieved a dunning letter from. I send the collection agency a verificication letter? I was under the impression that validation letters are for Collection agencies and verification letters are for original creditors.

If I am reading your post correctly you said that If I pull my credit and see collections on their I have never heard. I can request a validation after pulling my credit report and they do not have to respond and they can still verify with the CRA. I hope I read this wrong, becuase this would mean that they dont have to send out dunning letters and then you lose some rights. The bad thing is your post was laid out very nicley and not confusing like most. Hopefully I read it wrong. Thank you