Is this proper validation?

[DarkRave]

There is a debt of $150 from an alleged bill to Comcast that was forwarded to a collection agency and placed on my credit report. I sent a validation request to the CA and dispute letters with all CRAs.

The CRAs haven't responded yet, but I got this letter back from the CA:

-------------------

Our client submitted this account to our office for collection on January 28, 2008. This account has an outstanding balance of $141.34, for services and fees prior to December 28, 2007. Once payment in full is received, this account will be updated as paid in full with the national credit bureaus.

-------------------

Is this proper validation? Have they just violated FCRA? Should I press forward or just bow down and pay? I already asked for PFD and got ignored.

Thanks for all the help.

[Debt Guy]

FCRA has nothing to do with validation. You are thinking of the FDCPA. The Act sets a very low standard for compliance. In its most basic sense, all the CA must provide is the name and address of the original creditor. The FTC Wollman opinion letter says the CA must verify their infile info with the OC and provide a copy of the verification to the consumer. However, most of these verifications are electronic so there is really nothing to send.

If this is your debt, I would just go ahead and pay it. The balance is small and you can just get it behind you.

If it is not your debt, then refuse until the cows come home.

[razr]

FCRA has nothing to do with validation. You are thinking of the FDCPA. The Act sets a very low standard for compliance. In its most basic sense, all the CA must provide is the name and address of the original creditor.

The law is a bit confusing, it states:

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.

There are actually two parts. If you rearrange the sections, it becomes a bit more clear;

1) 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 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 is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

2) or...if the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, 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.

In other words, if the consumer only request the name and address of the original creditor, then that's all the collector must send. However, if the consumer request verification, the debt collector is required to confirm with the original creditor the amount being claimed is correct and that the person from whom they are attempting to collect the debt is the person who owes it.

So to answers OP's question; No, they did not provide proper validation.

-r

[borgman72000]

Since the OP is in TX, the Texas Financial Code would also apply. As such, the CA MUST validate the debt, so to answer the question, no, it is not proper validation under the TFC. That may scrape by under the FDCPA, but not the TFC.

OP, Google the Texas Financial Code Chapter 392. Read it, re-read it, know it, love it, use it, and fire off another letter to the CA requesting proper validation under the TFC. If they cannot properly validate the debt within 30 days, and you request how you want the TL dealt with in writting,

sec. 392.202 (d)(1) change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual;

[Debt Guy]

Razr

You are right that the words get confusing. We sometimes have a tendency to use "validation" and "verification" interchangeably. For all pedestrian purposes, they are the same -- however, the legislation uses the terms with specificity.

I don't read the FDCPA the same way you do. If you take the Wollman FTC Opinion Letter in context, which I think one must, the CA must do both in order to make a proper response to the dispute:

a) provide the name and address of the CA as required in the text of the Act (or a copy of the judgment as appropriate), and

verify their infile information with the OC and provide the consumer with a copy of that verification (verification is the word used in Wollman). As a practical reality, most such verifications are electronic so there is really nothing to send to the consumer -- but sometimes there is a document or printout of some sort from the OC.

This all makes sense when we stop to think why the validation section of the Act was written and what Wollman was addressing. Way back when Jimmy Carter was president and gas was 50 cents a gallon, validation was added as a way to address the rudimentary precursor to what we might today describe as identity theft -- or at least a mix-up in identity. So validation is really all about verifying identity. That is what Wollman is about -- the FTC is essentially telling the CA to not rely on the info in their files to make sure they have the right consumer but to verify with the OC. So, the info verified between CA and OC is pretty rudimentary in terms of data elements -- name, address, social, balance at some fixed date.

As to your conclusion that the CA did not properly respond to the dispute -- I guess that I concur that they did not based on the assumption that the OP fully and accurately described what he got in the mail -- but if that communication contained the name and address of the OC, then it was proper.

That was why I did not give the OP a yes or no to his question. I suspect there is not enough info presented to know for sure as one must make a fairly large assumption in order to venture a guess.

Which was also why I made the suggestion I did. The OP knows whether this is his debt or not. If so, pay it. If not, don't. Ultimately, that is what a dispute and validation is all about -- enough info for the consumer to know if the debt is his or is a mistake.

[hendu]

Since the OP is in TX, the Texas Financial Code would also apply. As such, the CA MUST validate the debt, so to answer the question, no, it is not proper validation under the TFC. That may scrape by under the FDCPA, but not the TFC.

OP, Google the Texas Financial Code Chapter 392. Read it, re-read it, know it, love it, use it, and fire off another letter to the CA requesting proper validation under the TFC. If they cannot properly validate the debt within 30 days, and you request how you want the TL dealt with in writting,

yes Borgman is absolutely right!

I have been told by legal advice that the Finance Code has "more teeth" than the FDCPA and FCRA!

[Debt Guy]

I have been told by legal advice that the Finance Code has "more teeth" than the FDCPA and FCRA!

It has been a while since I read the TFC (I am not a Texican) and I have never been convinced that it has "more teeth" other the Code mandates a timely response where the FDCPA does not. However, that response can be awfully basic and should not be a bridge too far.

[swirlgirl]

I just read the Texas code and it does not have any more teeth than the Federal law.

Here's a link: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FI/content/htm/fi.005.00.000392.00.htm

If you read the section § 392.202, the CA has 30 days to correct any disputed inaccuracy. From this, I am interpreting this to mean a specific inaccuracy like a certain date. I do not see this as a blanket "I dispute this tradeline. Please validate." In fact, the word validate does not appear anywhere in the statute.

Dude, this is a $150 cable bill. You know if you watched the cable or not. You can try a PFD amd move on. Or you can let this thing follow you for awhile. Decision is yours.

[NASCAR_Devil]

I just read the Texas code and it does not have any more teeth than the Federal law.

Here's a link: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FI/content/htm/fi.005.00.000392.00.htm

If you read the section § 392.202, the CA has 30 days to correct any disputed inaccuracy. From this, I am interpreting this to mean a specific inaccuracy like a certain date. I do not see this as a blanket "I dispute this tradeline. Please validate." In fact, the word validate does not appear anywhere in the statute.

Dude, this is a $150 cable bill. You know if you watched the cable or not. You can try a PFD amd move on. Or you can let this thing follow you for awhile. Decision is yours.

ABout the only "teeth" it has is the required 30 days to respond but their responses are admit/deny/need more time which ain't much.