Is this a complete & valid debt validation response?

I think you can DV them again for a better answer. When they didn't give proper answer then it means that they don't have those information with them.

They are not really required to reply with that laundry list you have going there.The original contract will show legal documentation of ownership of debt(you). I would request a cost breakdown as that is needed to make sure all charges & fees are legal.

The also must prove that they are the legal owners of the debt, and that they are licensed to collect in your state.

It does not state in law that they must provide all that garbage.I still stand firm that the contract is sufficient and the remaining item needed is a complete cost break down to see how balance was determined.

Cajun, you raise an interesting point. Not to play the bad guy here, but all the DV letters floating around on this site ask for all of those items. If they arent required by law to provide all of those items, shouldnt there be some clean up of the DV letter template that is posted here? Just a suggestion.

1. What the money you say I owe is for;
2. Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;
3. Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;
4. Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;
5. Identify the original creditor;
6. Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account
7. Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state
8. Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent
9. Proof that the collection company owns the debt/or has been assigned the debt. (You are legally entitled to collect this particular debt from me.)
10. Complete payment history, starting with the original creditor. (I need to have proof of my payment history with original Creditor,
11. what the amount of the debt was when the creditor assigned the debt to your company,
12. what fees/interest has been tacked on to this debt and how you/they determined these fees.) or credit card application. (My contract with the original creditor establishing the debt between us.)

I think Cajun is correct. I think the current DV letter is pretty solid but the problem in this case is the CA has the original contract with the original creditor which I think is pretty strong evidence if they take you to court. That paper takes care of points 1,3,5 and probably 9. I think they need to still show the math behind their numbers like Cajun said which would take care of points 2 and 12 firmly and also probably points 10 and 11. Point 4 means nothing unless they say they have a judgment. Obviously they can't provide it if one doesnt exist. Point 6 only means something if you claim it as a defense. Finally, I always thought points 7 and 8 were kind of BS anyways but it kind of depends on your state law.

I usually research whether or not they have a bond posted with the TX SOS before I send the DV. If they do, I include the bonding info in my DV. If I can't find a record of one or their bond has been cancelled or revoked, I Cc: the Office of the Secretary of State on the DV as well with a little note about the CA doing business in his state w/out the required $10,000 bond. I've never heard anything back from those CA's (4 so far)so I don't know if it worked or not but it gave me a kick to do it...;)

Under the fdcpa statute, what are we really entitled to that would suffice as validation?

The CA's stance in the situation can be thrown into serious question without a assignment contract or bill of sale. It's called the chain of custody, and when challenged (especially when it comes to junk debt buyers) it can be a real crap storm for them.

Laundry list. That's funny CajunBullDog.

You know, my rule of thumb is to ask for more than I actually want/need. The things I would absolutely have to see, at minimum, from them, in order for me to consider it validated, is a signed contract (with my actual signature on it, and not just one of those generic dealies that doesn't even have my name on it), A complete financial transaction history of the account up to and including what the CA's charging, and the proof they are entitled to collect the debt (ie bill of sale/proof of assignment).

Now, i'm not sure if that is what a court would require; however, it's my own personal requirement. I'm just not going to take some CA's half baked validation, as in a few copies of statements, as a factual representation of what I owe and that I should even be paying them and not the OC. That is if they managed to even produce a signed contract.

Under the fdcpa statute, what are we really entitled to that would suffice as validation?

That's the million dollar question that has been argued over and over on every board I've been too and has caused some friction between forum members. Per sec 809 of the FDCPA, validation is:

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) 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 any 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.

That is minimally enhanced by the FTC Wollman opinion:

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

Unfortunately, FTC opinion letters are not binding on a court, a CA or a JDB. Personally, of all the DV's I have sent out over the past year, only once have I gotten more than a printout on the CA(JDB's) letterhead. I DV'd FRS on DW's Discover and received the original signed app from Discover follwed by several settlement offers straight from the OC. Never heard from the CA again. On the others, I send follow up DV's informing them their validation is not acceptable but still haven't received any "real" validation. We can demand the world, but until a court makes a landmark ruling on what constitutes validation, we're not going to get it outside of the discovery phase of litigation.

And yet another argument in favor of the fdcpa needing a complete overhaul!

I guess when MBNA wrote their proposed BK law, and had their man in the White House sign the end result into law, they weren't too worried on strengthening consumer rights in the process. Only about looking after themselves. So I might recommend contacting your representatives in Washington, DC and telling them we need the FDCPA overhauled with more clarification added, much stronger protection against CA's walking all over debtors, and MUCH tougher penalties when they do violate it.

$1000.00 is not a deterrent at all for CA's that violate the FDCPA, it's just the cost of doing business to them.

Your right Ron, they need to clarify the requirements of proper validation so this does not need to be questioned so much on either side. The statute needs to be enhanced with further definition.

explain how fees are calculated

I have heard that FDCPA requirements for debt verification are soon to be modified and more clerified. Until then I think that it doesn't hurt to ask for as much verification as you think that you need in DV letter. It certainly doesn't hurt to show the judge what you requested and that they could not or did not supply the information to you. They DO NOT have to supply all of the information that you request in order to continue collection or file law suit against you. All they need to have to file a claim against you is something that forms a basis for the complaint.

Has anyone else heard about changes to be made to the FDCPA?

I recently got this response to a DV letter i sent using sample DV format from this site:

And what I got back was the following:
*****
Validation of Debt
May xx, 2009
(My Name)

Account number xxx for (My Name) acquired from (Original Creditor) is now owned by (CA Name).

At the time the account was acquired from (original creditor), (original creditor) advised that the balancing owing was $x.xx. Since that time, additional interest, fees, payments, credits, and offsets, if applicable, have been allowed, for a current balance of $x.xx
******
Thats it - no photocopies of statements, contracts or anything else.

They do not have to provide a contract or statements. That meets the bare minimum as defined in Sec 809 of the FDCPA.

Well, not exactly...

According to the FTC: "it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose." Even though this is officially an Opinion and not considered binding, it will likely be useful against the DC in court.

Darn it - I spent so long looking for the reference that I got logged out. The above post was mine...

That's the whole problem. The Wollman Opinion is not binding which places it in the hands of a judge. Considering the Good Ole Boy network (Judges are lawyers too!) here in Dallas JP Courts, you need to have all your ducks in a row if you end up in court.

True.

But one can appeal and the Appellate Court takes these things far more seriously. Personally, I would take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I had to, if some CA dared to give *me* that kind of flimsy excuse for "proof".

Part of the difficulty in locating a case precedent is that I look through *so many* cases and appeals cases and Dissenting opinions and law codes that it gets tricky finding a good reference when I need a specific statement!! And I am *positive* that this has been argued successfully in Appeals Court before.

State courts but no federal ruling to set the precedent.

Of course, I'm not an 'expert' in such things. But, looking at the 'proof'/.......ANYONE could have written that. It's just doesn't look professional, etc. to me. Know what I mean?

That's why I stated it was the bare minmimum. I wouldn't accept it and would follow up stating that only information on the OC's letterhead would be acceptable.

Exactly - When I read the response, I was dumbfounded.

Well, I didn't read the old parts of this thread, and now I see you (Nascar) have already quoted what I did above! [slaps forehead]

And that was my main point, I wouldn't accept it either! But when I just read all the details on the old post, that sounds more like Discovery in court rather than verification of the debt.