Advice request: acceptable validation response?

i would request copies of your credit reports.it does look like something they typed up themselves.the proper validation should have included something from the medical facility.i would re-send your original DV letter and state that you don't consider that validation.send it like before certified mail return receipt.

Thank you for your very prompt reply, Paul. Apologies I didn't check back sooner.

When re-submitting my Debt Validation letter, notifying them that I don't consider their response adequate validation, should I include copies of both their boilerplate cover letter and the 'itemized statement', or only the statement?

Any comment concerning the statute of limitations on debt in this situation?

Thanks again.

That was me. The page displayed me as still being logged in despite a refresh.

include all of the above in your re-send.alot of CA'S don't validate properly.force them to do it or leave you be.

First and foremost: is there another 30 day timelimit imposed for my response to the CA's, supposed, Validation? How can I be expected to retrieve my 3 credit reports in time for such a deadline?

[quote=paulmergel]the proper validation should have included something from the medical facility.i would re-send your original DV letter and state that you don't consider that validation.[/quote]

I just finished reading the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act", specifically titles 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a-1692p (http://uscode.house.gov/ write 15 for title, and 1692 for section in the search), and I didn't see anything to support the obligation of the CA to provide documents from the medical facility (it, obviously, wouldn't mention medical facilities outright). More importantly, I didn't see anything written in the Validation of Debts (Section 1692g) to suggest I have the ability to "reject" what they sent as proper validation (unless it's a breach of the validation, obviously).

The VD section made numerous references to the collector's need to provide verification of the debt, but no specifics as to what constitutes acceptable verification. Especially as far as is detailed in the Debt Consolidation Care's validation page. (The response to the "What details do you get through debt validation?" quesiton.) So where is that information coming from?

I am not convinced that the statement Medicredit Inc provided would be considered improper validation by a judge, and that's what is important here: it doesn't matter what I consider proper validation, but what a judge does. I can't write them back claiming imporper validation unless I know that to be the case.

Is there a US Code somewhere that details what the acceptable debt verification response from a CA is? Where are you getting your information that they are obliged to provide something from the medical facility? More importantly, where does it state that the CA is obligated to provide the documents mentioned in the sample validation letter?

After reading the FDCPA, I'm not even convinced the CA is obligated to even tell me the address of the original creditor, as the medical facility is still the same --- the collection agency has changed time and again, according to the Medicredit Inc statement, but not the creditor.

I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with "rejecting" their validaiton. Interestingly, I think the only true recourse I have (based on having actually read the FDCPA) is that their first contact with me concerning this debt was the "Notice of Debt". As outlined in subsection a, section 1692g, title 15, which it states should only be sent "Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt" (emphasis mine). This was the initial communication, but it's probably not enough to fight with.

I still think the Statute of Limitations on Debt for the state of New York is my best bet in this case.

I know this was long, and I thank you for your time. I look forward to everyone's further input.

The requirements of what constitutes proper validation are vague. I do not know of anywhere that it has been stated clearly what the legal requirements are. It looks like the last payment was 2002? That would seem to make SOL your best defense.

[quote=southernapostolic]It looks like the last payment was 2002? That would seem to make SOL your best defense.[/quote]
Not only the last payment, but the last time I ever heard anything about this was on May 1st, 2002. The balance on that contact, which was from the medical company and not a CA, was grossly lower than that reported by Medicredit Inc for March fifth, 2002. A June 30th, 2009, letter was the first contact from anyone concerning this debt since the May 1st, 2002, contact.

Still, since I have gotten the ball rolling with a validation request, do you suppose I should write back claiming invalid validation, or go directly to an expired Statute of Limitations on Debt letter?

Or maybe I should send both? Is there a penalty for claiming a validation response is invalid when it is, indeed, valid? Thereby forcing the CA to send further information.

I asked elsewhere (above, perhaps?) if the SoL is extended as the debt passes from collection agency to collection agency, or if it is in effect specifically from the delinquency of the original creditor, but have not received a response. I guess it can't hurt to ask again:

Is the Statute of Limitation on a Debt extended as the debt passes from collection agency to collection agency, or is it solely in effect specifically from the delinquency with the original creditor?

The statute of limitations does not reset by beng sold. If you have made no payments or signed an agreement to pay, then it is still 2002. It remains from the date of last payment. Personally, I would not bother with the invalid validation. Expired SOL is most applicable, and there is no ambiguity about it. It is a literal date, and unless they illegally reage the account, then they have no legal standing. I think a FOAD letter may be in order, but someone else may have a different opinion of that. I have never personally gotten to that point with a collector.

What does FOAD stand for?

... Uhm, if it means what google is telling me it means, I think I might want to send an SOL Expiration letter instead. Unless you think the SoL Expiration is something I might want to keep under wraps for use in a lawsuit. I wouldn't mind taking them to court for this. If the Debt is, indeed, invalid due to SOL, then wouldn't that make any attempt at validation invalid, and, thereby, a violation of the FDCPA? I want my $1,000! <3

No. SOL is only the term that they can legally make you pay. It does not make the debt invalid or stop anyone from attempting to collect. Attempting to collect after the SOL has expired is not a violation of the FDCPA.

Basically it is a letter telling them that the debt is beyond the SOL, and you are not going to pay it, and to cease communications.

Ah, so the SOL expiration simply means that they can't take me to court to force me to pay the debt. The debt will still exist on my credit report, and I can't have it removed due to the expiration, but there is no legal recourse to force me to pay it. Correct?

Correct. You have the defense of expired SOL if they try to sue you for the debt. If you tell them this, they will be less likely to pursue because it is money they will lose in legal and filing fees. Some collectors will sue on SOL debts hoping to get a default judgement if the debtor does not show up. In a case like this, a judgement can still be entered against the debtor. They still have to show up to make the defense. The debt will stay on the credit report until the end of the federal reporting period. You could always negotiate with the collector for a pay for delete of the tradeline. Probably wouldn't go for it, but some do. Get a written agreement that you will pay $xx and upon payment, they will remove the report from the credit file. But this one is so old, I would not wory much. It is probably ready to fall off on it's own, and old negatives don't have as much impact as new entries.

Given the aforementioned insights into the validity of the debt, regardless of the creditor/CA's right to sue, aren't the claims made in the sample SOL expiration letter a bit outlandish? Outright incorrect, in some cases: the ability to claim further contact as a violation of the FDCPA, for example?