Requested Validation... been 30 days... NOW WHAT

1. Dv to a original creditor is pointless as they are not bound by fdcpa laws.
2.Unless you have state laws saying different,there is no time limit on when they validate,they just have to cease collection until they do.
3. A affidavit is not proper validation in my opinion.

Cajun is right- you have 30 days to dispute, they have no time limit, unless you are in Texas or a ew other states.

There is one well know CA that sends out sworn statements, but they are a crock. You can always ask for them to appear in court and swear to this, which they can't, usually it's made up..karen

What is this about Texas? I'm not aware... do we have more rights concering time lines?

Here is a link, it's an old one, but it will give you an idea about Texas at http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/forums/westassetmgmt.html scroll down the page and you will find it..Good luck..karen

then why in all the debt validation letter do they mention that the CA has 30 days to respond? what is the point to that?

Additionally, what would an appropriate time frame be to turn to the credit bureaus and say- they couldn't validate this, please remove it?

I believe you have to dispute it with the credit bureaus and then the CA has 30 days to validate or it gets removed.

the problem is that youre talking about two very different things.

When you speak of the credit bureaus, it isnt validation, but VERIFICATION. Completely different. Here's the basics--

1--you notify the credit bureau(CB) that you dispute a debt listed on your credit report.

2--the CB notifies that debt collector that youve disputed the entry. The DC now has 30 days from date of notification to respond with VERIFICATION to the CB. Verification is nothing more than verifying your name and address, and SSN. This is NOT validation. Validation is more specific and actually has the goal of proving the debt as legitimate.

"Troll Spew" deleted.

It's not that we're trying to look for excuses to not pay. I think most of us are more than happy to pay the ORIGINAL CREDITOR what we owe them. It's these junk debt buyers who purchase the accounts for pennies on the dollar, add extra fees, then harass us to collect that whole amount. Validation doesn't mean we don't want to pay, it means we don't want to pay these snake companies.
Some of us were also in situations where we lost jobs, or due to medical reasons could not pay our bills. You're making it seem as though we're all thieves who do this intentionally. We're far from that.
??
You should have checked your spelling on #4 before you decided to insult us all as well.

I know it's difficult, but try to ignore the trolls when possible. I have trouble with that, too, but I try. Best is to contact a mod, to see about getting the troll-spew deleted.

Texas has some nice laws for consumers regarding debt. There is a way to force the issue for states that have no time limit. Once you send the DV and you get the green card (or email) back, you then dispute with the 3 CRAs. They will usually verify the account. Well, now you have the CA on continued collection activity because updating a credit report account is considered continued collection activity. Now you have them for $3000 in violations. You can then send another letter informing them that unless they close the account and remove it from the credit reports, you will take them to court. If they don't comply, take them to court!

What constitutes an actual validation of debt? One alleged creditor has sent me everything from an unsigned contract that they give to everyone to threats to report my husband to the social security office to have his benefits disrupted. To my second request for debt validation they sent a list of charges, for someone, no name, just words on the paper that charged for lab tests and other things. It in no way showed that we owed the amounts printed on the paper.

According to CHAUDHRY v GALLERIZZO:
Quote:

That Chaudry is often misquoted by collectors. If you read the full case, you will see that the part you cited is referring to the fact that validation was previously provided. Plus, they were dealing with the original creditor and lawyer which would not be subject to validation. But CAs love to quote that part, conveniently forgetting that verification and validation are two different things. :) But honestly if you read the case, the Chaudry's were nitpicking over the whole thing, mostly in relation to the legal fees.

But despite all that there is the fact that the various laws are very vague on exactly what constitutes validation. It is your right to demand for evidence of your debt when dealing with debt collectors who are not the original creditors. You can enforce this in court and you should point this out if a CA is being difficult. The general generic debt validation letter needs a complete revamping though, first to get rid of those wrong demands (like validation w/i 30 days unless you are from a state that specifically demands that.)

Reading through cases gives me a headache, I swear. :|

I had spent quite some time reading through cases, but it does specifically state "debt collector". The fact that the specific count was denied by the court was because the FDCPA (which their suit and appeal charged violation of) was not in effect. In fact, the "district court levied sanctions against Plaintiffs [the debtors] and their attorney for filing frivolous claims" because of this.

But, it is a fact that this is a legitimate legal precedent (and the courts *love* precedents) because the statement specified "debt collectors" and explained what exactly was meant, to the court, by verification or validation of debt.

And I completely disagree that they are different, how do you verify that a debt is yours unless you validate it? And by validating it, is it not therefore verified? It seems like semantic nitpicking to me.


Please explain to me the difference, I am unclear.

PLUS, the FDCPA title for section 809 is "Validation of debts". Paragraph (a)(3) says "disputes the validity ... assumed to be valid". Paragraph (a)(4) says "obtain verification of the debt ... copy of such verification". Paragraph (b) says: "obtains verification of the debt ... copy of such verification." Paragraph (c) says "dispute the validity". So, I don't understand how anyone can construe verification as different than validation when the statute specifically states that the verification is validation!

Oh, and I agree about that DV letter. People have 30 days in which to dispute the debt after which it is legally considered valid. Only disputes to the CRAs are constrained by the 30 day (extendable to 45) limit, and even then, that only limits how long they can continue to report the disputed mark. If the CA takes awhile to get back to them, then they'll just put the mark right back on if they consider it verified.

Well I know that the two are pretty much the same from a dictionary standpoint, but I mean in regards to debts, that the debtor asks for validation, the CRAs ask the CA for verification. But still it is all pretty moot because section 809 clearly states that the ???verification??? has to come from the OC and then be mailed to the debtor from the CA. But still, even if it does state that the debt collector need not keep detailed records, that is because they are supposed to send for those records from the OC. Refer to 808:

808. Unfair practices
A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limit-
ing the general application of the foregoing, the following
conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest,
fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obli-
gation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by
the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

So right there they HAVE to provide proper validation in the form of a signed agreement or contract.

But Chaudry still is a poor case to cite because there was never a debt collector involved and the fact that proper validation was given, but that some portions of it were redacted as attorney-client privilege. And that the legal fees were never outright demanded for, but that the lawyer only advised the Chaudry???s that further legal fees may be due. I agree with the court that the whole case was frivolous. But it is an easy precedent to tear completely apart because the case has no bearing on debt collectors, despite that one little sentence. Taken by itself, yes, it looks very damning to validation laws, but when the whole picture is revealed, it takes on a whole new light. As I said, the whole argument was that validation had already been given, that in fact since it had already been provided the lawyer did not have to provide it again, merely to ???verify??? with his client that the debt was correct.

Anyway I think debt disputes and validation demand letters should work from the assumption that were the situation to go to court, then the debtor can demand all that information in discovery and reference section 808 of the FDCPA. Also, that wrong information can NOT be reported in a credit report, and if the CA can???t properly prove that the information is correct, then they are subject to suit due to providing knowingly false information.

OK, thank you very much for this clarification.

I actually found it whilst searching through FindLaw for some case precedent as to how I should be approaching the whole subject of Validation.