I have a slightly silly question regarding collectors

[niko1999]

I feel a bit silly asking this, but here goes, and I will post in the collection section as well, since I am not sure where this should go. Down to the point. I had had a BOA account, it went negative, went to collections, and I paid on it. Well, after a couple of years or so, not remembering if I paid it all or not(silly I know), I disputed it back before thanksgiving. It falls off my report-YAY. Well today, I get a bill from a collector saying I still owe this debt. Now, I was wondering, I thought they only had 30 days to do that if the debt was valid? And should I send a validation letter to the collector, seeing as how it gives me the option. I would like to know if it was or was not paid in full, if not, I will pay it next month with income tax(gotta love it!!), and will request PFD, but should I even bother doing a DV, Im lost....

Thanks guys!

[zorrita13]

I had great credit until recently. A week ago I received a call from NCO saying they bought MNBA and have old debt with them, from 2000. I never received any statements and was not on my credit report until now. I have read the steps to take to make them validate the debt etc... just need some moral support. Thanks:)

[CarolinaBlueEyes]

Dont forget your state has an SOL as well.. and as far as it falling off that can't be changed.. it has to come off because its based on DOLA..

[Debt Guy]

NIKO

You really should not post in multiple forums since it gets so confusing. Let me know if you don't get your answer and I'll tell you how to deal with this.

ZORRITA

It is not polite to hijack someone else's thread. That also gets things confused when you have multiple conversations going on. Besides, you situation is not the same as that of NIKO and that answer will not fit your pistol. Go ahead and post your question.

[MaxedOut]

As a general rule, I always recommend having them validate first. Do not mention that you have made payments, do not talk to them over the phone, or they will pass go and collect $200.

Make them properly validate first and if they do THEN consider pfd.

[Debt Guy]

As a general rule, I always recommend having them validate first. Do not mention that you have made payments, do not talk to them over the phone, or they will pass go and collect $200.

Make them properly validate first and if they do THEN consider pfd.

Max

Can you please define what is a proper validation? The OP may not understand.

[MaxedOut]

Max

Can you please define what is a proper validation? The OP may not understand.

Proper validation these days is god knows what. I tell them to prove they own the debt and are legally entitled to collect the debt. I don't accept crappy looking computer printouts that a 5 year old could make, or anything like that. If they have the final bill showing I still had a balance, or something that would let me know that they are legit, then I would consider taking steps to paying it.

[niko1999]

Thanks eveyone! I will send out a DV tomorrow and eagerly await the results!

[Debt Guy]

Proper validation these days is god knows what. I tell them to prove they own the debt and are legally entitled to collect the debt. I don't accept crappy looking computer printouts that a 5 year old could make, or anything like that. If they have the final bill showing I still had a balance, or something that would let me know that they are legit, then I would consider taking steps to paying it.

Max,

The FDCPA defines validation/verification as providing you with the name and address of the original creditor.

You can ask for accountings and copies of signatures or any documents you wish. The CA is simply not required to provide that information. If know of some that will go to the effort to get a copy of the final statement or the credit card app. But, mostly they will just stiffen up and refuse because it costs money.

If you are sued, then you have the right to file an answer and to conduct document discovery. That is the only time you have the power to force the creditor to cough up anything documentary. And, even then, only to the degree the judge allows.

I am not picking on you. I see a lot of people on this site always telling each other to demand proper validation. I suspect they think rather like you -- that the CA is required to "prove" the debt. That is simply not the case. The only reason I raise this whole matter is my personal crusade to correct a lot of false understandings of the law.

Perhaps the FDCPA should be changed -- but until it is changed there is nothing you can do to make the CA do anything other than provide the name and address of the original creditor (and even then only within the narrow 30 window following the "dunning" or "first contact" letter.

Of course, it is your personal decision how you react to whatever the CA provides or refuses to provide. Likewise, it is the decision of CA whether to sue you, continue to harangue you or just let the whole matter go. In my many years in the business world, I have learned that people and organizations act in their own self-interest. That is what you and the CA will both do.

[MaxedOut]

Proper validation these days is god knows what. I tell them to prove they own the debt and are legally entitled to collect the debt. I don't accept crappy looking computer printouts that a 5 year old could make, or anything like that. If they have the final bill showing I still had a balance, or something that would let me know that they are legit, then I would consider taking steps to paying it.

Max,

The FDCPA defines validation/verification as providing you with the name and address of the original creditor.

You can ask for accountings and copies of signatures or any documents you wish. The CA is simply not required to provide that information. If know of some that will go to the effort to get a copy of the final statement or the credit card app. But, mostly they will just stiffen up and refuse because it costs money.

If you are sued, then you have the right to file an answer and to conduct document discovery. That is the only time you have the power to force the creditor to cough up anything documentary. And, even then, only to the degree the judge allows.

I am not picking on you. I see a lot of people on this site always telling each other to demand proper validation. I suspect they think rather like you -- that the CA is required to "prove" the debt. That is simply not the case. The only reason I raise this whole matter is my personal crusade to correct a lot of false understandings of the law.

Perhaps the FDCPA should be changed -- but until it is changed there is nothing you can do to make the CA do anything other than provide the name and address of the original creditor (and even then only within the narrow 30 window following the "dunning" or "first contact" letter.

Of course, it is your personal decision how you react to whatever the CA provides or refuses to provide. Likewise, it is the decision of CA whether to sue you, continue to harangue you or just let the whole matter go. In my many years in the business world, I have learned that people and organizations act in their own self-interest. That is what you and the CA will both do.

I know the CA is not required to provide the info, but this works both ways. Most people do not know what is required, nor do they know their own rights or whether or not they have any other options when a CA tries to collect from them. On the flip side, most CA's do not know what it is exactly they are required to validate either. Citing certain laws and demanding specific info is often a good way to get the CA thinking that you are someone who will not just be pushed around,will fight this like hell, and they will probably waste their time, money, and energy trying to collect from you. Using the term "proper validation" is to let them know that you will not accept the same crappy printout they sent the last guy to scare him into sending them $400, but rather you demand some sort of definitive proof that you owe the debt to them. Are they required to send you all those documents? LOL, no. Do they always know that? Absolutely not, and unless the debt is large and they can back it up with documents, most of the time they will just drop it or pass it off to another agency. There are exceptions of course...

As most of us have learned already, more often than not the CA has very limited info on the debt and know that if they were to go to court, they would have very little to go on other than the name and address of the original creditor, and a possible amount owed. This will not fly in a court (or at least in most courts). IMHO, it would be irresponsible not to demand/ask for as much info and/or proof as possible before paying ANY alleged (GOD I love that word... alleged ) debt from a CA.

In the end (whether they remove it or you end up in court), you will have proof that you at least asked them for this info, and that can do nothing but help you.

On a side note... I sent a validation letter to a CA and they even sent me a copy of an old bill. I sent another letter stating that it was not proper validation, nor was it proof that I owed the debt to them and that if they could not provide that info then they must remove their entries form my report. This was back in Aug'07. It was removed a few days after rcv'ing my letter. I will admit, at that time had they held their ground, I would have paid the measly $123 after trying to work out a pfd of course, but hey, I will take the deletion!

[Debt Guy]

Max

Cool. I just wanted to make sure you knew the law. Like I said, I am not trying to talk down to anyone and I know there are a lot of sharp people here -- there are also people who don't know and understand.

I agree there is a lot of posturing on both sides of the collection process. After all, collection is mostly an exercise in psychology.

I agree that the older the debt, and the farther it gets from its home with the OC, the worse the records get. I did a consulting project for a bank a couple of years ago and pointed out to them that they could get higher prices for the charge-offs they sold if they could support the paperwork needs of the downstream buyer. Up until that time, banks had always run their back office the same way they did 50 years ago -- documents were boxed up and pitched and electronic files were deleted. It made sense way back then because computer time and disc storage was incredibly expensive. Today, it is really cheap and getting cheaper every day (I remember when disc storage cost $1000 per GB).

Banks are strange creatures and they change ever so slowly. This particular bank was generating $6 million a month in revenue from selling their charge-offs -- so we were talking about real money. Their IT guys fought tooth and nail. After about a year, they implemented a document storage system. They increased their cost about $10,000 per month and increased their revenue about $50,000 per month. That is a 400% monthly return on investment. I sure wish I had been on a contract where I was paid a percentage of their savings.

This was a small regional bank. You can imagine someone like Chase or BofA where their chargeoff sales generate $100 million or so of revenue each month. I wish I had a piece of that too.

So, banks today don't keep much paper but everything gets digitized and those files are kept much longer that previously. I guess I am saying it will get harder in the future to "bluff" the CA or debt buyer since it will be much easier and cheaper for them to get the paperwork and what they have will be more accurate.

The upside for the consumer is that this means that documents will be more readily available in the future. So, those DV requests where people demand copies of the original agreement, it will be easy to provide if all they must do is print out the image from disk and I expect that more CAs will voluntarily do so when they start to realize doing so removes a barrier to communication and negotiation with the debtor. Likewise, mistaken identities and even ID fraud should be easier to resolve since it will be easier to produce documents and thus compare signatures, identities, etc.

I've learned every sword has two edges.

Anyway, I understand where you are and thanks for replying.