hendu

CA does not validate! What does this mean legally?

Recommended Posts

Scenario:

 

CA pops up on credit file.

 

Send DV and dispute with 3 bureaus.

 

TU deletes the account immediately. Still waiting on other 2 CRAs.

 

CA sends 2 letters, stating that because the request was not done within the 30-day time frame after receiving their letter, they don't have to validate and will still report.

 

CA is not licensed or bonded in Indiana. Can they legally collect? Can they report to CRAs?

 

Checked Indiana debt collection laws and found this:  (Please see attached document).

 

Does this mean that the CA does not have to validate this debt because of failure to respond within the 30-day time frame of their letter?

 

Without proper validation, how are they allowed to report to the bureaus?

 

Aren't consumers allowed to ask for validation? Is that not our right to receive it?

 

Thanks in advance!

INDIANA COLLECTION AGENCY BONDING and LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have another thread where this was already answered.

 

DV was sent after finding the trade line:  they do not have to respond and they can continue to collect.

 

DV was sent AFTER the 30 day dispute window, they can continue to collect.

 

NONE of this has to do with reporting.  If the trade line existed before the DV they have absolutely no obligation to remove it until they validate.  Reporting a trade line is NOT considered collection activity by many of the courts.  

 

Yes, consumers have the right to request validation WITHIN THE FIRST 30 days of being contacted.  Even then the collector can refuse to respond.  If they do all it means is they must cease collection activity until they do validate.   If the consumer lets the 30 days lapse or DVs in response to finding the TL then the creditor can ignore the DV and continue collection activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hendu dispute the items on your credit report with the credit bureaus (see links to sample letters, etc. at top of page)

 

If you think there is a licensing issue, contact the Indiana Atty General to file a complaint. You may want to wait on that though to see if they sue. If they do and don't meet Indiana requirements, that could be something you bring up to get the case dismissed.

http://www.nationallist.com/image/cache/White_Paper_Indiana_Debt_Collection.pdf    has lots of Indiana debt collection detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hendu

 

Does this mean that the CA does not have to validate this debt because of failure to respond within the 30-day time frame of their letter?

 

Without proper validation, how are they allowed to report to the bureaus?

 

 

Yes and yes.  The FDCPA says that a consumer must request validation within 30 days of receiving the initial communication.  A credit report entry is not considered an initial communication under the FDCPA.  You can dispute information on your CR, but that has nothing to do with the validation requirements outlined by the FDCPA

 

 

Whether or not they're not bonded in IN, see if they've complied with the laws in TX.

 

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/faqs2900.shtml

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't catch you're in Texas. I thought Indiana, but Texas has lots of regulations on this. See laws covering an out of state collector and both in and out of state collectors for Texas.

http://www.nationallist.com/image/cache/White_Paper_Texas_Debt_Collection.pdf

 

it also looks like you have Sec. 392.101.  BOND REQUIREMENT and Sec. 392.202.  CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FI/htm/FI.392.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In TEXAS you can DV ANYTIME you want to no matter if it's past the 30 limit as long as you CITE the TX TFC-392 in your letter. See my TEXAS THREAD in my signature line below.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TomnTex

 

I can't find any language in the TX statute that mentions validation.  Under the FDCPA, validation means that a CA has to send documentation to the consumer to prove that you're the correct consumer, and the amount being claimed is correct.

 

e)  On completion by the third-party debt collector of the investigation, the third-party debt collector shall inform the individual of the determination of whether the item is accurate or inaccurate.  If the third-party debt collector determines that the information was accurate, the third-party debt collector may again report that information and resume collection efforts.

 

 

The above says that all a CA has to do is "inform" you if information is correct or incorrect.  Maybe I've missed it, but where in the TX code does it say that they have to send you documentation as required by the FDCPA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in Texas but a family member lives in Indiana. They asked for help on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hendu

 

Then your family member needs to contact the appropriate IN government agency and report the CA.  They can also contact a consumer attorney to find out if they have any legal recourse against the CA for attempting to collect (sending collection letters) without being licensed.

 

BTW, have you read the collection letters?  Did the CA request payment?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but the state of Indiana requires a license and bond.

 

I bought this up after I discovered this.

 

Are they "legally" allowed the collect without a license in Indiana?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hendu

 

Are they "legally" allowed the collect without a license in Indiana?

 

 

Probably not, but only a consumer attorney or the appropriate state government agency can answer that for sure.

 

In the collection letters, did the CA request payment?  Or did they only say they don't have to validate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BV80,

 

It states "they don't have to validate.....30-day deadline was missed". I get that now.

 

The letter only says to contact to office to arrange payment. and will still report to the bureaus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hendu

 

If they didn't request payment, it's not a collection letter.  However, because they said to contact their office to arrange payments, it might be.  The quickest and easiest way for your family member to get their questions answered is to contact a consumer attorney.

 

http://www.consumeradvocates.org/find-attorney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B, it's not under the FDCPA, it's under the TX-392 and as long as they cite it, anyone LIING in Texas or are DEALING with a company based in TEXAS, then they MUST adhere to the TFC-392 and respond to a DV at ANY time it's requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I missing here?  I just read TFC-392 in its entirety and I cannot see any mention of "debt validation."  There is a section about disputing a debt but nothing resembling FDCPA regulations on collectors verifying the amount and validity of the alleged debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@texasrocker

 

That's what I'm wondering.  The statute reads "CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES".  In other words, you're disputing incorrect information.    Like you said, validation to confirm the amount and validity of the debt is not mentioned anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to have to recheck this. On another board that I've been on the past few years that deals mostly with Texas people they claimed that the TFC-392 allowed that by citing it you could DV at anytime and that the creditor had to answer. It's been a real long time since I had read it, now, guess I need to do so again. I was going based on what many others claimed........so much for internet info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BV80,

 

You have been a great help! I will keep you posted. It's funny though, how TU deleted. That's what usually happens but this CA is standing their ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that the CA does not have to validate this debt because of failure to respond within the 30-day time frame of their letter?

 

Per the FDCPA, the CA has no obligation, none whatsoever, in providing you any validation at all, even if you requested the validation within the thirty day period.

 

However, the CA would have to stop debt collection until it validates, in this particular scenario.

 

If instead you request validation after the thirty day period, the CA is not obligated to stop debt collection, and not obligated to validate at all.

 

Without proper validation, how are they allowed to report to the bureaus?

 

It depends whether the courts consider the CA furnishing info to the CRA a form of "debt collection" per the FDCPA.  Maybe they can, maybe they can't.  It depends in which jurisdiction you are in.

 

Aren't consumers allowed to ask for validation?

 

Yes.  Consumers may ask for validation as much as they want, anytime, to their heart's content, but . . .

 

Is that not our right to receive it [debt validation]?

 

No.  There is no right to receive debt validation.  There is a right whether the CA must stop debt collection until it validates, depending if you request validation within the thirty day period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.