Jump to content

Improper Validation , Now what. Possible Violations??


bassmaineiac
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, So I dv'ed a scum bag CA and got this in return.

Dear customer

Enclosed please find an itemized copy of the bill you requested. Fell free to contact us if you have any questions. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any info. obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector.

Attached was a computer print out from some company. With no company name,(looks like it was faxed to them thou). At the top it says transaction report. 11/30/2005 fuel oil

12/01/2005payment thank you

12/19/2005 returned check

12/19/2005 fee

1/28/2006 late charge

I don't remember a returned check .

If I had a returned check wouldn't they have proof, how about a copy of this alleged return check.

Seems like the CA might be in violation here, By trying to collect a debt(which they stated in there letter) while in the dv process. They also updated on my credit report. You would think if they had a returned check there would be a copy. How about them telling me who they are collecting for, or there agreement that gives them the right to collect this debt.Or real proof there is a debt.

My question to the knowledgeable cic members is this. Do I send a second Dv that says you are in violation of this that and the other.( Sorry dont have statues in front of me) And demand removal and a 1000$ if they cant properly validate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, do you recognize the information? Looks like it was for an oil or gas delivery?

Honestly, this doesn't seem any different than your other post about the dumpsters. Perhaps that's why you haven't gotten a response on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is much different I have no clue who the OC is. They never stated who they are collecting for. No copy of a bad check. nothing. They also tried collecting in the dv process.( Right in there dv response letter) I thought trying to collect a debt during the dv process was a violation.

The other one never tried collecting.They told me who they were collecting for. They also sent me an itemized bill from the OC. One thing they didnt do is give me anything with my sig saying I agreed to there charges, or anything that gives them the right to collect.( letter head from the company is probably enough to prove they can collect, I think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question (about validation, verification and 'proof') comes up frequently. Consumers don't like to hear the truth about it.

What, exactly, constitutes 'proof' that the debt is yours is whether or not it has your personal data (name, address, SS#, DOB, checking account #, etc) attached to it. This is what would be Verified if a live person called and requested 'proof' that it is yours. So that's all that's verified when the process is performed electronically by the CRA's and is typically all that is received when a consumer DV's.

Verification and validation are covered by the FDCPA and is nothing more than what is listed above. Case law goes a little further, requiring an itemized list of how they came to the figure they say you owe them. But case law doesn't apply nationally. It varies by judicial district/circuit. What a judge has previously ruled in your area is what applies.

So, is this yours? Did you, or do you, receive fuel oil from any company? Did you write them a check that bounced or was returned for some reason (that they might code as a bounced check, like a failed electronic draft)?

In specific answer to your question, I HAVE the statute in front of me. It's from the sticky at the top of this page...FDCPA 1692g, Subsection 809. All I can see that they omitted was "...the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed..." but if the CA has purchased the debt and now owns it, they would not need to include the OC's name in this 'proof'. Their name would be considered as 'owner', depending on the specific details. And their name probably is on the correspondence somewhere.

Lots of consumers copy form letters from the net that have a long list of required elements to establish 'proof' or 'validation'. I don't know where this list originated from, but 'proof' becomes an issue in the discovery phase of a lawsuit. Prior to that, verification is simply an exchange of the data detailed above and nothing more. That's why ID Theft/Fraud procedures were made available and why it's so important to follow those when, and only when, they apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof? Well they have my name and address(wich I gave to them in the DV letter). And what about them trying to collect during this process.

So the answer to my question is the next letter should be one the states prove it or remove it or I will see you in court.

Why are you so quick to want to sue or collect money from a supposed violation? This isn't the first "problem account" (and you seem to have plenty) where your thread quickly jumped on the idea of you benefiting from an account that went into collections.

Did you have oil delivered? Did you have a failed payment? Let's start there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of consumers copy form letters from the net that have a long list of required elements to establish 'proof' or 'validation'. I don't know where this list originated from,

Personally, I think that list was made more as a means to annoy and confound the CA, not to match any legal requirements. Because, as you pointed out, it's not based on the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.