Do CA have longer than 30 days to validate?

[Joncy]

After getting an arbitration notice, I requested validation (NOTICE OF DISPUTE), 30 days passed and no response. I sent a 2nd request after 45 days (NOTICE OF FAULT- OPPORTUNITY TO CURE) giving them another 20 days or else the alleged debt was considered invalid. I replied to the arbitration stating it was not a valid debt and other really great things mostly along the lines of making statements without providing evidence (Facts are not in evidence regarding _____, CA did not provide documentation to support their claim). Apparently this shut them down. They asked for a STAY. Still no reply on the validation. They were sent a NOTICE OF DEFAULT for not validating the debt and thereby admitting the debt was no valid.

Now, 6 months later they have submitted additional documents with the invalid acct. # crossed out and a hand written number instead. I don't think this is valid either, but my main question... Aren't they barred from pursuing this alleged debt if they did not validate it within the FDCPA required 30 days?

[willingtocope]

Under the FDCPA, they can take as long as they like to validate, as long as they mark your credit reports "in dispute", and cease all further collection efforts until they do validate. This probably means they couldn't continure with the arbitration either...which is why they didn't reply to your motions.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Somewhere in my aging mind, I tend to remember that various courts/FTC opinions, etc have held that it's "reasonable" to expect a response within thirty days and I would maintain that is a good rule of thumb.

However, as Wiling pointed out, I'm not aware of any binding court decisions, statutes, etc that mandates thirty days...there may be some states that have imposed that limit but nothing on the Federal end.

I also suspect that if the collector can show any sort of justification for the elapsed time, no court would hold it against them for taking whatever time they needed to respond.

Also, in passing, let me say that I don't believe your asking for validation will have any impact on the arbitration process but know almost nothing about the arbitration process.

[Recovering Attorney]

They can take as long as they want.

Since you are in the arbitration gauntlet, I'd talk to a NACA lawyer. Having answered NAF, you may have put yourself behind the 8 ball

[Joncy]

Well, fortunately looks like a 11/2004 last payment so the 3 years SOL is in effect. But no one has addressed the fact that the account numbers do not match. All they did was cross out one number and put another so it would match what the OC gave them. Which, I understand they cannot talk about in court anyway, since they have no first hand knowledge. Comments?

[willingtocope]

Arbitration is NOT court. If its the NAF, you will lose. Period. SOL probably doesn't even count.

[Joncy]

I was able to successfully get the arbitration stopped. I put the CA in a losing position and they ceased (stayed) action. Most all of my arguments were surrounding the "facts not in evidence" regarding claims made by the CA.

For example: "(b.)Facts are not in evidence regarding IV.(b.) (above) – CA did not provide documentation to support its claim of the alleged contract. Where’s the contract?"

Here's more:

1. Respondent rejects, denies, and disputes each and every item that the Claimant has made. This rejection, denial, and dispute is based on the simple fact that the account that is the basis of this claim is not the Respondent’s account. As such, the Respondent is not bound by the alleged “Terms of Agreement” supposedly associated with the account, including the “Arbitration Clause”. Therefore, the Respondent is not bound by any award that this Forum makes against the Respondent. Respondent reserves all rights to elevate this claim to a judicial proceeding against the Claimant should the need arise.

2. The facts are not in evidence in any statement the Claimant has made. Neither the Claimant nor its attorneys have any personal knowledge about the alleged debt in question to which they have submitted a verified claim to this Arbitration Forum. A typed summary by Claimant indicating an alleged debt owed by Respondent without copies of documents that created that debt has no more validity then the Claimant producing a typed document saying it owns Respondent’s home.

3. Before Respondent addresses the issues of this Claim, it is important to note that Respondent served NOTICE OF DISPUTE and REQUEST FOR VALIDATION OF DEBT. The FDCPA does not allow any collection efforts including this Arbitration Claim to proceed prior to validation of this debt. Claimant will not be able to validate this debt because Respondent has never had an account with XXXXXX with the account number of XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Claimant did not properly exhaust its Administrative Remedies prior to submitting a claim to this forum. Before Claimant can proceed in this format of a quasi-judicial procedure of Arbitration, Claimant must address the NOTICE OF DISPUTE and REQUEST FOR VALIDATION OF DEBT.

4. The Claimant has some challenges in this Arbitration Claim and in answering Respondent’s NOTICE OF DISPUTE and REQUEST FOR VALIDATION OF DEBT as is discussed by The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys ("NARCA") in a 2006 report that there are challenges for collecting purchased debt. NARCA goes on to discuss in more detail the problems of proving a purchased debt:

A purchasing plaintiff is unable to swear to the authenticity of the originating or source documents of a credit transaction because they do not have personal knowledge of the events which transpired at that period of time in the life of the credit agreement. The original cardholder agreement, any correspondence, and monthly statements issued by the original credit grantor are not admissible as the purchasing plaintiff's business records, as the purchasing plaintiff has no personal knowledge of how those records were created or maintained.

One attorney states, “I see over and over attempts by the plaintiff (not the original creditor but rather a debt collector who purchased the debt, sometimes for pennies on the dollar) to "prove" the debt by their own testimony. This simply does not meet the evidentiary requirements because the plaintiff debt collector has no personal knowledge of how the alleged debt originated.

==== END of this portion of Response to Claim ===============

Just remember, an attorney or CA cannot EVER make any statement of fact without documentation to back it up. Even though they do it everyday, having the right knowledge will allow you to put a stop to it. RULE #1: Know the rules.

Everything I applied, I learned from one source. PM me if you would like more info on that.