response to debt verificaiton letter
Date: Sat, 06/10/2006 - 00:52
Does that mean since they could not verify in 30 days I can submit my origial letter and their response to credit agencies and have that old account removed from my credit report? What are my options, if any?
i need help writing letters such as this type, anyone got any sa
i need help writing letters such as this type, anyone got any sample letters
Did you send out a request for validation or just disputed the a
Did you send out a request for validation or just disputed the accounts? I do not think they are compelled to respond to debt validation request within 30 days, but they cannot start collection without validating the debt once you have placed the request.
However, if you dispute the account, they must respond within 30 days, or you can request bureaus to remove the item.
The response they have sent to you might not work well, because they have not stated that the account is invalid. So bureaus might verify it as correct, however, there is no harm in disputing the same with CRA.
BTW, how old the account is and when it is going to be removed from your report?
Oops identity, I missed your post. You can browse the links belo
Oops identity, I missed your post. You can browse the links below. I think it will help you-
http://community.debtcc.com/letters/index.html
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/books/sample-letters.html
Fakegranmother. There is no limit to the the time a collection a
Fakegranmother. There is no limit to the the time a collection agency or collection attorney has to validate a debt, But they are required under the law to cease collection attempt until they can validate the debt. It seems since this guy responded and stated he is working on it, you need to be prepared for him to produce the requested validation (though you apparently have time).
In theory you could send a validation request, and it may take them three years to validate the debt, and that is ok, as long as they ultimately produce the validation, though most agencies if they can't validate it, simply return the file to the original creditor.
Only consumer are restricted to requesting validation or disputing the debt within 30 Days of notice of intent to collect.
Clay, Shouldn't the collection agency also have to respond in
Clay,
Shouldn't the collection agency also have to respond in 30 days? I don't think it is fair that we have a 30 day deadline to do a debt validation, but they can take as long as they want.
I agree with you, and that is a common misconception. They can t
I agree with you, and that is a common misconception. They can take as long as they need to validate, as long as they cease collection attempts in the interm. I agree it is unfair, but it is what we have to work with.
I think you previously posted the link to the FTC report to Congress for 2006. This issue is talked about on Page 6 of the report (though its shows as as 7 of 13 in the PDF document).
https://www.ftc.gov/reports/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-federal-trade-commission-annual-report-2006-types
On the subject of debt validation, doesn't a letter from a debt
On the subject of debt validation, doesn't a letter from a debt collector have to contain the following statements:
Quote:
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. 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. 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. |
Also what if the consumer doesn't validate the debt within 30 days and then decides to validate it?
In the fdcpa it states:
Quote:
The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section (809) may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. |
Isn't NPA or National Processing of America a CA? They sent me a letter without the above statements. A violation of law.
I also got an email from Zipcash asking why I wasn't making payments. They didn't even know they had sent the account to Riscuity. Anyway I'm going to send a validation letter to Riscuity even though its been over 30 days.
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text
I just requested validation of the debt - am not disputing it be
I just requested validation of the debt - am not disputing it because I do not have records to prove it - thought I paid off that CC before closing acct about 3 years ago, but my record keeping was sloppy. I know better now - but am still paying for negligence of my youth!
All collection agencies must validate the debt in writing as per
All collection agencies must validate the debt in writing as per the federal laws. You have the legal rights to refuse any payment until the account has been reviewed thoroughly and found free of any dispute. If any CA is not responding to your validation request, explain this incidence to the credit bureau in writing. If the CA has reported a negative remark in your file, the CRA will investigate with the company and get the proper details. Under the FCRA, your credit report should display accurate credit information only. If a collector, creditor or a credit bureau is refusing to correct invalid negative information after providing proof, it will result defamation and willful injury. You can sue them for FCRA violations under Section 623 up to the extent of damages.
This is an interesting discussion because I was under the impres
This is an interesting discussion because I was under the impression CA's had thirty days to respond as well. My husband received a letter from a CA representing an old but huge medical bill. It has been placed on a debt settlement program so we've forwarded all of the info to our debt consolidation company. We did not send a validation request or dispute the debt. Today, he received another letter from the CA. They are local and licensed CA so this really isn't any problem. The letter basically stated they had done a property assesment and he needed to respond before the matter goes to court. They said something about the original creditor's attorney being involved at this stage as well. I e-mailed my debt counselor but probably won't hear back until Monday because of the weekend. I'm wondering if we should send the debt request/cease and desist because the amount has grown by four hundred dollars. Any ideas?
Scooter, That is my question as well, do we have more than th
Scooter,
That is my question as well, do we have more than thirty days? My husband dealt with one CA who held the letter and sent it a week before the supposedly thirty days was up. I'm just trying to understand things better myself. I know some of the CA's that deal with pdl companies can be very tricky. I had one basically state that I never disputed the debt when I had proof that I did. If you do send something, I would send it certified mail with return receipt requested.
Avenger, if I apply some deep thinking over your case, I guess t
Avenger, if I apply some deep thinking over your case, I guess the collection agency has got your file from the original company before you put in the consolidation plan. Your counselor may be dealing with the original company and the CA is not aware about it. Ask your counselor to notify your company about the activities of the collection agency. They might pull your file back from the CA it's the case.
It's my understanding that the 30 days begin when YOU receive th
It's my understanding that the 30 days begin when YOU receive the letter. I received letter from NPA on the 9th. It was dated the 2nd, but postmarked as being sent from Kansas on the 6th.
I would think in your case since the amount has changed, you should be able to ask for validation of the new amount. JMHO. It wouldn't hurt anyway. But as Justme said, see what your counselor says.
My avatar is my dog, Scooter. :D
Try the book "good credit is sexy" as well as here. Be ca
Try the book "good credit is sexy"
as well as here. Be careful of those sites that claime "cease and desist" there is far more involed unless you want to go to court.
Time, patience and determination will help. We made the mistakes, and must deal with them. There are legal ways to do this, educate yourself, and plan to work on your problems.
I have raised my scores from 500's to 700's in a year, been to court three times, and settled out of court 2 times. I have had collection agencies pay me (well my attorney) 3 times.
There are law's and CA's must follow them, there are also heartfelt sadness for the OC's because thru this all, they have never been involved. What's sensible about that?
Link deleted as per forum rules - Mike
Quote:There are law's and CA's must follow them, there are also
Quote:
There are law's and CA's must follow them, there are also heartfelt sadness for the OC's because thru this all, they have never been involved. What's sensible about that? |
The fdcpa does not apply (legally) to original creditor, though many claim they adopt the FDCPA as their guidelines in carrying out their own collection activities. When the FDCPA was written it was not congress's intention to limit the rights and remedies available to original creditors. in a Staff opinion letter to Kimberlee Arbuckle of midland credit management, FTC Attorney Clarke Bickerhoff states
[quote]By use of the language "owed or due another" Congress was attempting to exclude those entities that extend credit from the effects of the Act. Congress intended to protect borrowers from "third persons who regularly collect debts for others." (Italics by court; citation omitted). (The purchaser) is a third party collecting a debt originally owed to another. . . . It cannot escape the spirit of the Act by the technicality of purchasing the debt upon default so that title technically rests in itself.
Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1293 (D. Del. 1990)[/quote]
In the foot notes he further states
Quote:
1. Section 803(6)(A) only specifically exempts creditors' officers and employees. However, it "seems clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended that this exclusion cover creditors themselves as well as their employees." Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1291n.3 (D.Del. 1990), citing Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1484 (M.D.Ala. 1987). |