Lawsuit after repeated refusal of verification demand

File your answer timely to avoid lawsuit.In your answer,raise defense that suit is frivilous since they cannot validate.Show up for court and ask judge to order them to prove this alleged debt by the legal definition of court approved evidence rules.

Thanks for the tip... as it happens, though, a little while after I made that post, I got verification documents in the mail, and it appears that everything is in order. I'm contacting the attorney to see about making payment arrangements. We'll see whether the offer I've made is amenable.

Gah... bugger. That last post was from me, obviously. I hate the way the timeouts work here... Actually, this whole board is pretty buggy in quite a few ways, but that discussion obviously belongs elsewhere.

What did they send you as validation? I am currently in the same boat. Who were the attorneys and who were they collecting for?

Remember, there's a difference between verification and validation. It would be interesting to know what they sent you, because these debt buyers generally can provide little.

Validation is what we should be looking for right?

OK, here's the story as brief as I can make it:

I originally asked for validation, and what the attorney for PRA sent me was a letter, typed on his own letterhead, with no other supporting documents, that simply described the debt and so on in accordance with the validation section of the fdcpa. (I discussed this in another thread called "Response to DV Request Seems Pretty Weak", elsewhere in this forum.) Needless to say, I wasn't about to accept that as "proof" that everything was in order, and I sent yet another request for verification of the debt. I then received notice that PRA's lawsuit against me was being transferred to my county of residence, whereupon I sent yet another verification demand to the attorney and warned him to cease all collection activity until he had verified.

Here is what I received yesterday:
* Two copies of old Visa bills, one showing the DOL and the other showing the final balance
* A sworn and notarized affidavit (photocopy, not original) of a "designated agent of Providian" identifying the DOL, the final balance, and affirming that Providian had sold the debt to PRA
* My original application for the Visa card

The attorney also included a cover letter saying (among other things), "We have fulfilled our obligations under the law to respond to your verification. We do not have to prove our case with this letter." Which I thought was kind of odd... to me, the documents actually do constitute proof. I suppose you could get persnickety on the basis that the documents aren't originals, but I don't think there would be anything to be gained by splitting hairs quite that thin.

The attorney also said, "You might want to consider working out a settlement. Your choice." I hate losing a fight, but I have to admit, I think they've got me. I can either work something out now or get nailed in court within the next few months or so. The SOL is up in five months, but this attorney clearly knows what he's doing and is not likely to let the SOL pass before a court date comes up. I've sent him a letter discussing a possible payment arrangement.

Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

They have some good stuff but there is a few holes that can be poked in it.
1. On the statements,does the final balance match up with the amount they want.If not,then that fails as valid.
2. Who is original agent of Providian and why should you believe the affidavit?Unless that person testifies,this is and can be fought as heresay & inadmissible evidence.
3.On the original apllication is it your legal signature and is it readable?
4.He is also not giving any evidence to prove who is the legal owner of this debt. Without a legal assignment or clear title of debt,they lack standing to sue anyone.
5. Ask court to subpeona assignment of title.This document should show who owned debt from the original creditor to present day.You can also subpeona everyone who signed document or they can also risk you calling document heresay.
Good luck and study your court rules of procedure very well.

I appreciate your comments, CajunBulldog, but I think it's time to give up on this one. The balances do match; the application was by phone, not written; and as to demands for further evidence, it's become pretty apparent by now that they either have it or can get it -- and if I start playing real "hardball", I'm probably going to end up having to go to court, then losing anyway. Also, the information on my credit report does show that PRA is the owner of the debt.

I've done battle with several dozen collectors, and this is the first time that any agency has come anywhere near this close to validating and verifying a debt, so I think they're on firm ground. Even Bud Hibbs says he thinks they've got me, and you know how he is about collectors.

If it were a huge amount of money, I might consider fighting further, but it's only about $2,300 (and even at that, that's the corrected amount... they were originally trying to claim it was $2,900, and when I pointed out the error, they reduced it).

Debt Padawan,

I hope you are able to reach a settlement agreement with them to avoid going to court. Something similar happened to my husband a couple of months ago regarding a debt that was listed on his consumer credit counseling plan. We went round and round with the attorney's office. They did provide verification/validation they were handling the account. Can someone answer me the exact difference between validation and verification? I'm a little confused on this point. Also, if a collector has purchased a debt, do they have to show you proof that they own the debt?

Mishele, This is how I take it and I am probably wrong on this one. LOL Credit cards isnt my game payday loans are. However from what I have learned validation means they show what you owe and when it was incurred. Verification verifies who you are and that you are the creditor. That is what I understand it to be. KYSIDE38

Did this 'lawyer' fulfill these requirements?

Debt Pad, I just learned last week that PRA has purchased an old Providian Debt of mine. I first thought the account had been turned over to WW&R, but apparently, I was wrong, or WW&R sold the debt to PRA.

Will you be trying to negotiate with them to pay a lesser amount?

If so, hope you will share with me, as, I will be interested in learning what percentage of the original debt they accept.

Thanks:

You can try with the collection agency to negotiate up to 60% to 75% of the total balance. Make sure that you have the deal in writing before sending the money.

Reesie, I can not recall, did wwr act as if they were suing you on this account?

Thanks KYSIDE, that makes more sense to me now.

Quote:

Ok, so the wwr account may still be active. I am trying to get proper debt validation from them now. It has been a real pain.

PORTOFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES IS A VERY BAD COLLECTION
AGENCY AND A VERY ILLEGAL COLLECTION AGENCY EITHER.

Most collection agencies are acting illegally. If anyone is contacted by one, simply asked for their license number for the state in which they are trying to collect in. If they are in North Carolina, and you live in Oregon, they must be licensed to collect in your state. So, just ask them for the license to collect in your state, and that you will be checking with the Federal Trade Commission to verify their credentials. You will most likely never hear from them again. Also, if they place a bad mark on your credit report without first validating the debt per law, they are acting illegally and may be subject to huge fines, and you may be entitled to damages.

Ok guys, I am making it a point to get a motion to compel WWR/CACH to provide me documentation. They said in bright blue marker that I am not entitled to this documentation. I need a judge on this case, so I will be filing my motion this week for the clerks office.

Good for you. You are entitled to all documentation per federal law. They are with-holding information that they legally must furnish you upon request. If they refuse, then they are behaving illegally.