Recommended Posts

Situation:

After having good luck cleaning up credit previously, got back into debt due to roommate that skipped out. Have a debt with a CA. Can't remember if received a notice about this debt or not.

Sent DV letter to CA.

Received letter back from CA stating:

“Courts have stated that verification of the debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.”

This is not my understanding of FCRA or FDCPA. Am I right or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Courts have stated that verification of the debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.”

That's correct. Did they give you any indication that they actually confirmed anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are quoting the famous case of Chaudhry vs. Gallerizzo. If you search, you will find plenty to read about it. It has been discussed on these forums extensively. I'll leave it at that for now.

Just one more thing: Don't spend much time worrying about whether or not their response complies with the FCRA or the FDCPA; those statutes do not really deal with Collection Agency responses to DV requests.

Here is what you keep foremost in your mind, and say to them: "I'm not sending you any money until you send me the documentation I require."

They can bluster and threaten all they want, but you are in the position of power. You have what they want: money. And they don't get it until you choose to send it to them.

Good luck,

DH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's correct. Did they give you any indication that they actually confirmed anything?

I maybe wrong, but there is a difference between "verification" and "validation" so it should be clarified that the DV stands for Debt Validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I maybe wrong, but there is a difference between "verification" and "validation" so it should be clarified that the DV stands for Debt Validation.

If you're talking about that sentence in the ubiquitous sample letter that says "This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION...", I've never been able to figure out the distinction it's trying to make.

Here are the facts: The relevant FDCPA section is titled "Validation of Debts":

"§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]"

Then it goes on to say the collector must send a letter, and two of the subsections say:

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

So, it says the consumer can:

-dispute the validity of the debt

-the collector will obtain and send verification

So even though the DV letter stands for "Debt Validation" letter, I think what a consumer is indeed asking for is "verification."

Regards,

DH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that instead of the confusing line you mentioned above we should write something like this: "I am requesting validation and verification of this debt."

That way there's no wiggle room based on semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to parrot back the wording from the FDCPA:

"I am disputing the validity of this debt, requesting verification of this debt, and requesting the name and address of the original creditor."

That shouldn't confuse anybody.

Regards,

DH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like to parrot back the wording from the FDCPA:

"I am disputing the validity of this debt, requesting verification of this debt, and requesting the name and address of the original creditor."

That shouldn't confuse anybody.

Regards,

DH

It confuses me. I would modify it as follows:

"I am disputing the validity of this debt, and am requesting verification of the debt's validity, including the name and address of the original creditor who can independently validate the debt's validity pursuant to the burden of proof doctrine."

In this case the CA must verify not only the amount but also its validity.

The verification only verifies the amount for entry or typo.

The validity proves the existence of the debt to you, therefore your liability to pay. That would require substantial proof. Not only he said, she said.

So until then the debt is disputed!

Remember that a burden of proof is on CA (the accuser) not on you and is constitutionally inherent to FDCPA.

What is exact warding of the case law?.... does it refer to written accuracy or debt accuracy?.... does it take in consideration a burden of proof.

Edited by sub00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.