Verification Letter

Hit him with a debt validation letter. There are samples of validation letter under the Our Services section at the left and click on books then click on sample letters.

Keep on him Billy....He can't avoid you forever.

I'm assuming from your message that you mean that you have already sent the debt collector a letter demanding validation (or verification) of the debt. If you mailed the letter within thirty days of the first communication you received from them that included a written statement of your rights under the fdcpa, then they're prohibited from taking any action at all to collect, including calls to your home or business, unless and until they respond with information that shows that (1) there is a valid debt that (2) you owe.

If you haven't sent them the demand for validation (the term used by the statute, though it would work to say "verification"), then do so now. If you did but they keep calling anyway, file suit in your local court of general jurisdiction. It's good for up to $1000 per violation (or actual damages whichever is the bigger number) plus attorneys' fees.

Per the fdcpa, validation of a debt is "intended to assist the consumer when a debt collector inadvertently contacts the wrong consumer at the start of collection efforts." Through our courts they have taken on virtually an identical view, stating, "verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

A 3rd party collector has no obligation to forward copies of bills, signatures or other detailed evidence of a debt.

You do have a right, and if you don't validate and the person pays you after they have already paid the account in full, then you are stealing money. Validation is here to protect us from cam/crooked collection agencies and to prove what debts we owe or don't owe.

Guest Settleup:

I don't think that the language you purport to quote is in the Act. Perhaps you're relying on some legislative history or judicial dicta, in which case I'd appreciate it if you'd cite your sources so others can look them up.

Settleup--then what do you do when there is your company and another one collecting on the same debt? Only ONE of you is correct, and how am I going to know which is correct without complete and valid information? Both companies know my name and that I owe money. The file has to be complete! This is why the law states that you must validate!

Settleup read this then maybe YOU will understand!

Kindly refer to the case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo,

No, because I am ending this here. You are not worth the time to argue with.

Settle, Tammy just quoted US law....That settles it in my opinion, and the opinion of the US law.

Tammy, I agree with your above section of the fdcpa. However, it is a judgement call to decipher whether or not "proper" validation has been provided by a debt collector.

The question remains, what is proper validation?

Proper validation will prove without a doubt that you owe the debt to the collector.

Proper validation is when the collection agency gives proof of the following.

1. Name and address of creditor

2. Provide the debtor with copies of any papers that shows the debtor agreed to pay what you say the debtor owes

3. Prove the Statue of Limitations has not expired on this account

4. Provide proof that the collection agency is licensed to collect in the state in which the debtor resides

5. How you came up with the amount you say the debtor owes

Would you like anymore examples?

Assuming this is the same settleup that has come on here before and stirred up trouble, I must commend his response, in that he provided the information he was citing. Unfortunately , he is comparing apples to oranges. The case which he cited on the surface appears to support his position, however if your read the entire case, there were many more factors that whether the fdcpa (which doesn't apply to original Creditors) was violated by NationsBank Mortgage Corp (the original Creditor) and their attorney, who it appears was not acting as a collector at all , but as legitimate legal counsel in a pending lawsuit.

Tammy's quote of the FDCPA was right, however, it is important to remember that the FDCPA is for "Collectors" (including attorney who collect for others). The FDCPA DOES NOT apply to the Original Creditor. If a OC does comply with the FDCPA, they do so willingly, but there is no legal obligation for them to (with one exception, if their collection department uses a different name than the Original Creditor its self).

And a final not to Settle up, please do not confuse the community using terms like First Party and Third Party. While the (collections) industry does use these terms to muddy the waters and create confusion, the FDCPA clearly defines the roles of (original) Creditor and Collector (including attorneys who collect for others). The Law does not address First and Third party.

To view the UNALTERD FDCPA law as written and amended without commentary , please go to https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text

As I continue reading the case, this bit of infomation was stood out, and I think will be very usefull to community memebrs who are working on addressing the obligations, and their rights.

Proper validation is when the collection agency gives proof of the following.

1. Name and address of creditor

2. Provide the debtor with copies of any papers that shows the debtor agreed to pay what you say the debtor owes

3. Prove the Statue of Limitations has not expired on this account

4. Provide proof that the collection agency is licensed to collect in the state in which the debtor resides

5. How you came up with the amount you say the debtor owes


Tammy, I agree with #'s 1 and 5. You are wasting the toner in your printer with #'s 2, 3 and 4.

Why don't you agree with 2,3 &4? Why shouldn't you provide proof of the paperwork? Each state has different SOL's, why wouldn't want to provide a date? It would be smart of the collection agency to provide proof of licensure. If the agency is licensed they should have no problem providing proof. If they are conducting illegal collection without a license them I can see why you would disagree with #5.

Quote:

I think one of the moderators has posted in somewhere that collection agencies set their own rules and think it to be as correct as law. They do not care what the law says actually. That is the reason settle up disagrees with #2, #3 and #4.

Okay, I am a bit confused on what has
to be provided as validation by a CA.

Section 809 only refers to:
(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

I don't see any provision that states
a CA has to furnish anything else.

Please do not let the collectors in disguise fool you.There have been many federal cases that disprove that useless chaundry that isn't worth the paper it's written on except as toilet paper.Please note the following case.It is on appeal currently but the judge discussed what is validation in court.

KENNETH JON GUERRERO, Plaintiff, vs. RJM ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Defendant.

CIV. NO. 03-00038 HG-LEK
This is federal court in Hawaii.

Quote: