Jump to content

Debt Verification vs. Validation. Is There a Difference?


Bambee
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been reading tons of threads here trying to gather up some ammo for my 2nd letter to CBCS who just sent me a computer printout of a credit card statement in reponse to my request for verification under the FDCPA (i.e. the original agreement, itemized statement of accounting, etc.)

Anyway. I noticed both in the threads and in section 801 of the FDCPA that the words "verification" and "validation" are used. What's the difference between verification and validation, if any?

Also, if anyone has a good sample letter that I can use as a reference for writing my own response to CBCS's computer printout, please post it. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FDCPA is arranged sort of like this:

809 Validation of debts

- CA has to send a dunning letter within 5 days...

- If the consumer disputes, the CA must obtain and forward verification...

- If the consumer ignores the CA, there is still no account sated

- Legal pleadings don't really count as initial communication

- something about the Grahm-Cracker act

so you see, verfication is one part of validation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no real difference between verification and validation and the FDCPA does not require very much at all for a collector to meet the minimum requirement of the law.

However, that really doesn't matter - you need to be requesting what YOU need in order to answer your reasonable questions about the debt and until those questions are answered, you have no reason to send a third-party money.

At a minimum, most people will want to know that this collector has the legal right to collect this debt on behalf of the original and/or current creditor.

Most people will also want to know that the amout they claim is owed is correct - a simple "statement" saying you owe $X does not explain how the amount was arrived at.

Beyond that, it all dependson YOU and the Debt...for instance, if you believe the account isn't even your account then you would reasonably demand proof that it IS your account by asking for copies of whatever documents originated the alleged debt (of course the type of debt will dictate what sort of documents exist).

It is up to you to stand firm and stay in control of the process because if you don't control it, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no real difference between verification and validation and the FDCPA does not require very much at all for a collector to meet the minimum requirement of the law.

However, that really doesn't matter - you need to be requesting what YOU need in order to answer your reasonable questions about the debt and until those questions are answered, you have no reason to send a third-party money.

At a minimum, most people will want to know that this collector has the legal right to collect this debt on behalf of the original and/or current creditor.

Most people will also want to know that the amout they claim is owed is correct - a simple "statement" saying you owe $X does not explain how the amount was arrived at.

Beyond that, it all dependson YOU and the Debt...for instance, if you believe the account isn't even your account then you would reasonably demand proof that it IS your account by asking for copies of whatever documents originated the alleged debt (of course the type of debt will dictate what sort of documents exist).

It is up to you to stand firm and stay in control of the process because if you don't control it, they will.

Yes Rob this is good! And, yes, I asked for these things and more. . . All I got in return was a computerized billing statement. I just found a FTC opinion that held that computerized billing statements along cannot verify a debt under the FDCPA. I will be sure to include this opinion in my response to CBCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

You will need to be firm in your requests - you may never get your answers but if your demands are reasonable under the circumstances, that will only help you as things move along.

I also wanted to add, no one can write a letter better than the person making the request and I would also suggest you stay away from qouting statutes or using terms only an attorney would use...be strtightforwad and use your own words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Rob this is good! And, yes, I asked for these things and more. . . All I got in return was a computerized billing statement. I just found a FTC opinion that held that computerized billing statements along cannot verify a debt under the FDCPA. I will be sure to include this opinion in my response to CBCS.

Yes. I have used that letter has had success with 2 CAs, possibly 3 as one is starting to delete off of my credit. That is a good letter use. If you look at the "question" thread you will see us arguing over this, but I say it won't hurt send the letter.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283709

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I also wanted to add, no one can write a letter better than the person making the request and I would also suggest you stay away from quoting statutes or using terms only an attorney would use...be straightforward and use your own words.

I know some may not agree with this, but because those letters do look like a lawyer wrote them I will sometimes make a minor typo mistake hear and there on purpose to sort of downgrade it a little. I know this sounds kind of weird, but I have considered that the CRA or CA may think it came from a third party lawyer. I usually will add one to two paragraphs of my own words for the situation that I am using the letter for too.

Also, I may write note in the letter somewhere too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I have used that letter has had success with 2 CAs, possibly 3 as one is starting to delete off of my credit. That is a good letter use. If you look at the "question" thread you will see us arguing over this, but I say it won't hurt send the letter.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283709

Thanks everyone for the good advice. I wrote a draft response but I'll water it down sometime today.

Joseph - I've read a few pages from that thread you provided and I agree with you. The FTC letter only talks about what does (and does not) constitute validation of a disputed debt but Section 801 of the FDCPA goes much further. In my letter I also requested that CBCS cease and desist all communications with me (and cease and desist collection activities) but I had no idea that any future communications (outside of the 3 exceptions)would be a violation on their part. So your advise is very helpful. I've already got CBCS on 2 violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my letter I also requested that CBCS cease and desist all communications with me (and cease and desist collection activities) but I had no idea that any future communications (outside of the 3 exceptions)would be a violation on their part. So your advise is very helpful. I've already got CBCS on 2 violations.

You cannot tell a third-party collector to cease communication and then turn around and continue to communicate with them!

I can't help but wonder how you expect to receive informaion from them if you've told them to cease all communications????

If I understand your posts correctly, you are in the Debt Validation proess - than cannot happen if the collector can't communicate with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot tell a third-party collector to cease communication and then turn around and continue to communicate with them!

I can't help but wonder how you expect to receive informaion from them if you've told them to cease all communications????

If I understand your posts correctly, you are in the Debt Validation proess - than cannot happen if the collector can't communicate with you.

The cease and desist applies to all future communications (after this letter) since they cannot validate the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cease and desist applies to all future communications (after this letter) since they cannot validate the debt.

Ah...I see...my mistake.

In that case, however, the KISS principle applies - make sure the "cease communication" part of the letter isn't obscured by a lot of other "stuff".

Let's face it, if you are going to tell them what to go do with themselves, there really isn't a lot you need to tell them beyond that which they either need to read or will read and if it gets too complicated with "reasons" for the cease communication they may well totally miss the primary message of the letter. :)

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.