Debt Validation Help!

I've got a situation here...

Got a collection letter from Hudson and Keyse in January collecting for a WaMu/Providian card, requested debt validation at that time, never heard anything then they started sending more letters. Sent another letter last month....got something in the mail yesterday from their "dispute resolution desk".

This is what I was sent:

- A copy of an article from Collctor Magazine from Feb 2004 an article by Matthew B. Johnson entitled "Verification and Validation" and it goes on to talk about the misconceptions of what consumers are really entitled to and that we are NOT entitled to a copy of the original contract, the collection agency agreement, the date the CA obtained the account and so forth and it quotes Chaudhry v. Gallreizzo. If anyone is interested in seeing this, I can scan and send to you .pdf.

-A copy of the last statement from WaMu

-A letter the CA typed with my name (spelled wrong), SSN, Original lender, and date last paid.

They also said that "We are flagging this account to be reported as disputed to the credit bureau agencies on the next reporting date". This should have never been reported at all!

Any help, insight?! What am I really entitled to in terms of validation.

[/list]

This is from the fdcpa as it is written regarding validation!

(a) Notice of debt; contents
Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(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
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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 a 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.
(c) Admission of liability
The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

What you posted Frog is specifically referring to it as "verification", that's a scary thought.

Interestingly enough, thats how the CA was referring to it in their letter..."heres your verification".

So what is validation I wonder..?

You know, when I first came to the Forums, I read all the stuff I could find on validation, and thought I knew what it said.

I haven't read them in a long time, but have gone back in the last 20 minutes or so, and find that what Frog posted is not what I rmembered reading!! Especially number 4. I had and have always written to the creditors all the stuff that we talk about here- validation, not verification--copy of original contract, proof it was sold, etc. Now I am concerned!

Maybe someone who has something else showing that all this stuff will point the way, I was sure when I got here that someone posted a link or info that included all these things-but that was a long time ago!..karen

I remember that link Bossy, but I can't find it. I thought verification and validation were two seperate things altogether!

The section is referred to in the fdcpa as "Validation of Debt." I posted a site under "Interesting Reading" in this section which has a ton of info!

I did too, Shazz, but if I read the fdcpa right, it doesn't mention all that stuff. It also seems like that someone posted something about a case law regarding the info we are talking about, but I can't remember who or when-do good to remembermy kids names karen

I'll take a look at that Frog....thanks. And thanks to Bossy and Shazzers for responding here..I just think they are trying to pull a fast one.


I could feel the blood rising to my face when I saw that there was a freakin' magazine article attached from Collector magazine..?? What the heck!

An article is strictly an opinion and is biased and not necessarily true!

Volley- in the past I have had CA tell me they didn't have to do anything but say I owed the debt, etc. I even had one send a false "sworn" avidavit to me!!

I just keep sending letters to the one I have been deling with and including copies of my previous attempte. Then in any of the follow-up letters I send, I throw in any violations that they may have done, such as continuing to collect, calling a third party, etc. They keep passing it on to another agency when I do that!..Karen You might PM Cajun, He may be the one that had some case law on this..Good Luck..karen

I do seem to remember a case law that was posted here, I'm pretty sure I bookmarked it, but that's at home and I am at work. I bet that goldenblast, JCEMT, or skydver would know, maybe they will be around to answer soon! That verification thing bothers me!

Exactly! Thats what pi$$ed me off the most! They couldnt explain it so they had to send me a 4 year old magazine article?

bump

Evenin' Volley -

I'd think that if the case [any case] went to court, they'd have to establish firmly that it was your debt, that they were authorized to collect it, etc. Basically, all the stuff we ask for in a validation letter. Not providing that proof to the consumer on request makes little sense, unless they have an ulterior motive.

Anyway, would you send me a copy of the article? I'd be interested to see it.

Wulf-I will scan it tomorrow and post it here or just PM to you.
Sending me an article from a collector magazine that talks about what consumers are/are not entititled as being justification and a defense is lame in my opinion and they even used the term "we hope this refreshes your memory of this debt" in their cover letter. Thats not the issue...the issue is the additional $5k they say I owe.
They had already had a violation as they sent me 2 more letters during the DV period.
This is what I asked for in my DV letter. I guess I am just a tad bit confused on what we are asking for in the DV letters and what we are entitled to as validation per the fdcpa....?