dwright19

Is this a credible validation?

Recommended Posts

I sent out a DV to Equdata of Newport News, VA. They replied within 2 weeks with a "DV" The letter is as follows

 

Located in the Suddenlink Residential Agreement paragraph 1, Agreement states, "Customer agrees to be bound to this agreement by: (i) executing a copy of the service order presented to Customer at the time of installation, (ii) ordering a service,or (iii) using one or more Services at Customer's location." Activation and use of the service is acceptance of the Residential Services Agreement.

 

The attached payment ledger serves as validation of debt.

 

Contact our office for information on how to reconcile the account(s) or on how to return your cable provider's equipment. You can satisfy your account by calling our office and paying your account in full at no additional charge using your check, Visa, Debit, or MasterCard.

 

Equidata, Inc.

 

Federal law requires we inform you this is an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

 

 

Also attached to the letter they sent me were screen shots of the customer ledger that i suppose is from Sudden link. It shows account activity and the services I was charged for but and the debt I owe.

 

Does this CA have to verify anything else i.e. proof that they own that debt now or the contract from suddenlink showing I have to pay it?

 

I am new to all of this and need some help asap..

 

Thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Equidata has split this debt into two separate accounts or this is how it shows up on my credit. Meaning that they have reported it twice on the account but split the amount so instead of this one account appearing only once it now shows up as two different negative accounts is this legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also attached to the letter they sent me were screen shots of the customer ledger that i suppose is from Sudden link. It shows account activity and the services I was charged for but and the debt I owe.

 

What do you mean by "but and the debt I owe"?

 

 

Also attached to the letter they sent me were screen shots of the customer ledger that i suppose is from Sudden link. It shows account activity and the services I was charged for but and the debt I owe.

 

If Equidata is simply a collection agency working for the original creditor, they don't own the account.   They're merely collecting for the OC.  Is the OC reporting?

 

 

Also Equidata has split this debt into two separate accounts or this is how it shows up on my credit. Meaning that they have reported it twice on the account but split the amount so instead of this one account appearing only once it now shows up as two different negative accounts is this legal?

 

Is it one debt?   I don't understand how they could split one debt into 2 amounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "but and the debt I owe"?

 

That was a typo sorry. The ledger shows how much the services for the cable provider cost, one charge to my credit card when I opened the account and how much I owe for the past due account.

 

If Equidata is simply a collection agency working for the original creditor, they don't own the account.   They're merely collecting for the OC.  Is the OC reporting?

The OC has not reported on my CR. Equidata is the only account showing up for this cable company 

 

Is it one debt?   I don't understand how they could split one debt into 2 amounts.

It is one Debt. Equdata is trying to say $185 is for services provided by the cable company & $527 for the cable equipment. On the ledger they sent me that they have from the cable provider it shows I owe one ammount. of $712. So Equidata is reporting one account under the same number for $185 and reporting under the same account number for $527..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they validated.  You don't have a violation there.

 

However, I don't believe they should splitting the bill and reporting 2 separate debts on your CR for the same account simply because there are 2 charges on the bill.  If that was allowed, then credit card companies could put separate entries on CRs, as well.  One entry could be for missed payments based on charges while another entry could be for missed payments based on credit card fees. 

 

I would dispute both entries directly with the credit reporting agencies (CRAs), and I'd so by mail.  My claim would be that they are duplicate entries based upon the same account.  Go to each CRAs website in order to follow the proper procedure for disputes with each agency.  It might be necessary to include the bill as evidence that the account is just that...one account.

 

Then go from there based upon the responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't need all three of these below just one for validation? What does a debt collector need to provide as debt validation?    

  • Proof that the collection company owns the debt/or has been assigned the debt. (Bob is legally entitled to collect this particular debt from you.) This is basic contract law. It is very difficult to get a judgment without a direct contract between collection agency and the original creditor.

     

  • At a minimum, some account statements from the original creditor. If you really want to get sticky, you can pin them down on the amount of the debt by requiring complete payment history, starting with the original creditor. (How the heck did Bob calculate this debt? What fees/interest Bob has tacked on to this debt and how he determined these fees?) This requirement was established by the case Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber and Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072, 7th Circuit Court, Sept 2004..

     

  • Copy of the original signed loan agreement or credit card application. (Your contract with Joe establishing the debt between you.) However, account statements from the original can fulfill these requirements.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  None of those are necessary for validation.  Those are things you'd request if you were sued by a CA or JDB.

 

All that's necessary for validation is the name of the original creditor (OC) and the amount of the debt.  This is to make sure that the CA is contacting the correct person. 

 

BTW, notice that the first 2 items in your previous post mention an "original creditor".  That implies that the account has been sold to a junk debt buyer (JDB). 

 

A collection agency (CA) collects for the OC.  If you pay a CA, the OC gets the money.   When an OC sells an account, it is purchased by a junk debt buyer (JDB).  The JDB does not collect for the OC because the OC is out of the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for all the questions as I am a little confused I found this info on this site under the title Debt Validation. I cannot not find any info that states this is only if being sued by a CA or JDB. From what I have read on this site a CA & JBD are basically the same. The only difference is if the CA buys or is assigned the debt. If they buy it then they own it and do not send the OC any monies. If it is assigned then they are collecting for the OC. So a JDB is still a CA just trying to make a profit for themselves. So why wouldn't I be able to still get this debt validated in the same way. Why wouldnt they still fall under the same rules and laws as a CA assigned this debt. The DV process allows me to make sure they CA/JBD is the legal owner of the debt. 

 

I just want to make sure I dont just get this one letter that has some exert from Suddenlinks Contract(not the original) and some screen shots of a computer ledger. Then end up paying or settling with them when I could have asked for more validations as I see this as inadequate. If it is a credible validation I am just having trouble understanding that because of the contradictory info I have read on this site and from what you are saying. Thank you for all of your help and time on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CAs and JDBs are the same in the regard that they are both debt collectors and are bound by the FDCPA.  Also, some JDBs will collect for an OC, but that's usually not the case.

 

CAs collect for the OC.  They don't purchase debts.  Therefore, they don't own the account.  JDBs purchase defaulted accounts.  Hence the name, junk debt buyer.

 

The term assignment can have 2 different meanings.  Assigment means a transfer of rights.  A CA can be assigned to collect a debt.  That's the only right they have.

 

A JDB can be assigned ALL rights of an account.  That means they've purchased the account.

 

The purpose of validation under the FDCPA is to make sure the right person is being contacted about a particular debt.  You can tell from the name of the OC and the account number if it's your debt.  

 

I could be wrong, but I know of no state that  requires a CA prove that an OC hired them to collect the debt in order to validate.  Nor is there a state law that requires a JDB prove they own the debt for purposes of validation.

 

Read this part of the FDCPA regarding validation:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692g

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  None of those are necessary for validation.  Those are things you'd request if you were sued by a CA or JDB.

 

All that's necessary for validation is the name of the original creditor (OC) and the amount of the debt.  This is to make sure that the CA is contacting the correct person. 

 

 

Actually, I don't think that's quite right.  I think they need an actual copy of the bill or a copy of a cancelled check or a contract.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok that makes sense. Thank you again for your thorough responses. I guess my next step will be to try and pay for delete. Unless you see any other option.

 

623 method?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't think that's quite right.  I think they need an actual copy of the bill or a copy of a cancelled check or a contract.  

 

I didn't mean that a CA can simply write down on a piece of paper the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt.  I should have been more clear by stating the documentation that was provided to him showed that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that a CA can simply write down on a piece of paper the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt.  I should have been more clear by stating the documentation that was provided to him showed that information.

 

Actually the screen shots of the payment ledger show nothing of the OC name or address. It just has my name on with nothing actually stating that the OC(suddenlink cable) even printed it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm assuming that since this is a cable bill, that Equidata is collecting for the cable company.  Therefore, the bill should show the name of the creditor.  I'm not sure it has to show the address. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm assuming that since this is a cable bill, that Equidata is collecting for the cable company.  Therefore, the bill should show the name of the creditor.  I'm not sure it has to show the address. 

 

Yeah even on the Payment ledger there is no name of the OC anywhere to be found. The name of the OC was just typed up in their cover letter.

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