What Next? Am I Out of Options?

[ImaBird]

In January I sent a DV to Asset Acceptance.

They responded with a questionnaire that included all of the questions that I should be asking them. They must think I'm an idiot. So I wrote them back and told them about it.

Finally, by March, the lady handling my case wrote back with some generic information including my address and original account number and called it a validation.

I responded with an ugly letter about how they are completely out of line, what they are doing is illegal, and I have a mind to sue them over it if they do not respond accordingly. I pulled a lot from example letters, then put my own personal twists on them.

I have yet to hear back from them. They are completely ignoring me.

So what do I do?

[willingtocope]

Not much more you can do. If they are reporting on your CRs, if they haven't marked the tradeline "in dispute", you could try an ITS letter. If it is marked, they'd done their part...all you can do is wait to hear from them again.

[ImaBird]

Well, EQ removed the TL last month, EX says "consumer disputes", and TU says, "verified according to FCRA".

I wrote TU and told them that Asset was unable to validate according to FDCPA. I played the crazy person. I'm not sure they care, but I want to make waves about it any way that I can, because they obviously CAN'T validate.

Wow. Okay, so I guess I'll just keep waiting.

Thanks!

[Debt Guy]

unable to validate according to FDCPA

The FDCPA does not define validation. The FTC has resisted giving a definition. There are some court cases that kinda define validation but they conflict with each other and having one mean anything requires that you sue and then be in the right judicial district.

This allows the CA/debt buyer a lot of latitude to define what constitutes validation. What AA sent you complies with the FDCPA in the minimalist sense.

Technically they are not even required to do anything except mark the tradeline disputed -- which is pretty meaningless.

[ImaBird]

Technically they are not even required to do anything except mark the tradeline disputed -- which is pretty meaningless.

Then what good is it really doing us?

[Debt Guy]

Then what good is it really doing us?

I'm not sure if the question is literal or rhetorical.

A request for verification is not all it is cracked up to be. Everyone on the site has this mantra about DV. I never understood.

When Congress wrote the FDCPA, the purpose of validation was to allow the consumer to determine the identity of the creditor -- sort of a precursor to what we today call identity theft. In those days collection agencies were mostly very small and not computerized and common old mistakes were not unknown. Those mistakes were relatively easy to clear up in those days.

The explosion of consumer debt and the consequent explosion of defaults of consumer debt has made many consumers strive for tools and ways to delay the day of reckoning if not eliminate it altogether. It has also lead to an explosive growth of the collection industry and too much fast and lose behavior.

When the FDCPA was written Jimmy Carter was President, Star Wars (the first one) was hot at the movie theater, television came over the air on 3 stations (4 if you counted PBS), gas was 60 cents a gallon provided you did not have to wait in line to buy it, not one person in 100 could identify Iraq on a map, you could buy a first generation IBM PC with a 12mhz chip and 1mb of memory for about $4000 or so, a VHS tape deck cost $1200 and blank tapes were $25 each. The internet had not been invented and cell phones were incredibly rare and only for the very wealthy -- literally no one expected those technologies to become so common that 2nd graders today have access to both.

The FDCPA could stand some updating. Consumers want and deserve more protection from abuse by debt collections. Creditors want and deserve more effective ways to prevent consumers from dodging debts that are legitimately owed. Those goals are somewhat in conflict and there is a natural tension.

In my perfect would a rewritten FDCPA would:

1. Provide for a maximum judgment of $10,000 per action for violation. That would create a tremendous incentive for collectors to be on the straight and narrow.

2. Creditors responding to a request for verification would be required to produce at minimum some documentation from the OC to evidence the debt (either the original credit app or a statement on the account). Creditors unable to respond to this standard would be allowed to continue collection activity but limited to written communication unless the debtor initiated a telephonic conversation.

3. All requests for validation would be deemed "timely". Creditors would be allowed a maximum of 90 days to respond.

4. Debtors would not be allowed to issue a cease and desist. Debtors would be allowed to restrict creditors from calling at the debtor's place of work and during a 10-hour block to time designated by the debtor as their sleep hours (presumed to be 10pm to 8am unless otherwise specified by the debtor).

5. Creditors would be allowed to call the debtor's cell phone. Creditors would be permitted to speak with the creditor a maximum of 3 times weekly. Creditors would be permitted to dial a debtor's phone number a maximum of 5 times daily. Creditors would be permitted to leave phone messages without need for the mini-miranda disclosure.

Those were the suggestions I had for the FTC during their comment period. To me, these changes would clarify and simplify much of the conflict that exists today between creditors and debtors. There is something here for everyone to like and everyone to hate. To me, that is the test of an equitable resolution.

[willingtocope]

In today's world, the purpose of the DV process is...

1. To ask the CA hassling you on the phone for written proof that they have the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to collect in your state. (Otherwise, you can just roll over and cough up money to somebody who calls you on the phone and says "hey, I know you have a CC. I'm collecting. Send me the money")

2. If you don't have the money to pay the OC immediately, the DV process buys you a little time. Often, CAs don't want to be bothered with debtors that know their rights. They'll send the debt back to the OC...who will then hand it off to another, more agressive CA.

3. To establish a paper trail. If the OC decides to sue, you'll be able to tell the judge "your honor, I asked them to prove this was mine, and all they sent me was an "account stated" (or whatever)".

The DV process is NOT a cure-all. If you truly owe someone money, you're probably going to wind up paying all or part of it one way or another. But, the point is...make sure you're paying the right people, the right amount...and negotiate for the best possible outcome for your credit reports.