Debt verification vs. debt validation...

I had sent a debt validation letter for my wife to Weltman, Weinberg & Reis the first part of December. Today we got in the mail a very brief response saying "enclosed you will find the verification you requested". It was basically the October statement on a credit card.

Is this really validation on their part. Is this enough to satisfy our debt validation request? This is the first validation letter I had sent out and am wondering if this is enough on their behalf and also should I respond back?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Name and address of the original creditor, account number, and a brief summary / breakdown of the total due is all they really need to provide. All is pretty easy to provide but I would pay close attention to the total due. Each state has a max interest rate that can be charged.

If you search the net you'll see alot of DV letters with requests for things that the CA doesn't need to validate. OC info is self-explanatory. Account number would link the account to you. And the total they are requesting doesn't need to be validated month by month or some unreal request. Once they link the account to you all that's really left is making sure the charges are legitimate. There's really not much to validating the debt other than to stall the collector and to let them know, in a subtle way, that you're not just some shmuck that will dance when they start pulling your strings.

The one additional request you might make is to ask for "proof" that the CA has been assigned (or sold) the debt by the OC. While they may have "satisfied" the FDCPA criteria, a simple copy of a bill/statment is probably not enough in an actual courtroom. As mentioned, at least you have informed them you know your rights.

That's not enough. If they say you owe them a debt, they need to provide you with the original contract signed and another piece of information.

Do a search on the Credit boards (http://www.creditboards.com) - they have the info that a validation needs to require the debt validation to be met.

That's not enough. If they say you owe them a debt, they need to provide you with the original contract signed and another piece of information.

Do a search on the Credit boards (http://www.creditboards.com) - they have the info that a validation needs to require the debt validation to be met.

Nothing in the FDCPA requires them to give that info. WHat creditboards is saying, is make it hard for them to proceed with normal collection activity-including lawsuits. Because, they will have to provide specifics if you get sued.
I like one posters idea of validation. Will it convince a fairminded judge that the debt is yours and, can they prove a chain of custody.i.e. do they have a legal right to collect.

That's not enough. If they say you owe them a debt, they need to provide you with the original contract signed and another piece of information.

Do a search on the Credit boards (http://www.creditboards.com) - they have the info that a validation needs to require the debt validation to be met.

Like I said earlier, there's quite a few DV letters floating around the Internet that request validation of items that the creditor or collector does not have to validate. At best it's a stall tactic by the debtor.

§ 809. Validation of debts
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) 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;

All they really need to prove is that you're the person the debt belongs to, who you owe it to, and the amount.

I like one posters idea of validation. Will it convince a fairminded judge that the debt is yours and, can they prove a chain of custody.i.e. do they have a legal right to collect.

All they really need to prove is that you're the person the debt belongs to, who you owe it to, and the amount.

Exactly, and if they can't prove you owe *them,* the collection agency, which many times they cannot, then they need to cease collection of a debt.

There is very important especially when junk debt buyers have purchased old debt packages that for one reason or another the debtor no longer has a legal obligation to pay. Two I can think of are SOL and bankruptcy discharge.

Edited to add:

However, this is good to know as I'm still learning who to "play the game" so to speak. Why do you think I was called out of the game with a bankruptcy? It's always good to know what tools you have to use and weild. It is fairly common and very well known that many debt collectors use illegal means and tactics to get people to pay debt they may not even have a legal obligation to pay.

They can send you what their "legal counsel" suggests satisfies validation. Once they have dome that they can proceed with a suit. However, if you are a player and willing to hold them to task, eventually under discovery you can "answer" with a request for original contracts, detailed account info, etc. But, the FDCPA does not specify what constitute debt validation. However, I believe that in a court of law (no matter the judge) you can request they provide evidence that the original debt and contract belong to you.

In my opinion, if you know you owe the debt, what is the point in arguing? You might only add collection and/or attorney costs to an eventual judgment. There is some great advice on the credit and debtor boards, but some of it refers to what I deem to be nothing other than stall motions.

I'm no expert, so read my response as opinion only.

Cheers!

Yes. Many of the things people do are stall tactics.
Sometimes that is all you need.
Another month or two to get things in line so you can file BK.
If you can hold off a judgement by stalling, then why not?
Why pay that money for a month or two if you are going to BK it all anyway.

They can send you what their "legal counsel" suggests satisfies validation. Once they have dome that they can proceed with a suit. However, if you are a player and willing to hold them to task, eventually under discovery you can "answer" with a request for original contracts, detailed account info, etc. But, the FDCPA does not specify what constitute debt validation. However, I believe that in a court of law (no matter the judge) you can request they provide evidence that the original debt and contract belong to you.

In my opinion, if you know you owe the debt, what is the point in arguing? You might only add collection and/or attorney costs to an eventual judgment. There is some great advice on the credit and debtor boards, but some of it refers to what I deem to be nothing other than stall motions.

I'm no expert, so read my response as opinion only.

Cheers!

And when the Judge asks you, "Mr. Debtor does this debt belong to you?", the debtor will be under oath and answer accordingly, or risk getting caught telling a lie. The debtor will actually help the creditors case.

Exactly, and if they can't prove you owe *them,* the collection agency, which many times they cannot, then they need to cease collection of a debt.



All they need to do is prove you owe the debt. They don't need to prove you owe "them". Debtor owes the debt and they are the ones collecting on it. Buying debt is not illegal and neither is attempts to collect. They may need to show where the debt originated from, but not that you ever had a contract specifically with them. If they had to show proof that you sepcifically had a contract with "them" then they would never be able to sue. But, that's a great idea and may put the brakes on alot of shady collection agencies, if it was ever made a law.

When Chase filed a lawsuit against us, we filed an answer with the court requesting validation of the debt. Since we defaulted our credit card number had changed and our Visa turned into a mastercard. About a month later, Chase sent an enormous envelope in the mail with photocopies of 5 years worth of statements on this account! Yikes, we haven't heard anything more but we're actually very close to filing now. I just wanted to buy some time. Chase never placed the account with an outside collection agency, I guess they have their own in house legal department.

All they need to do is prove you owe the debt. They don't need to prove you owe "them". Debtor owes the debt and they are the ones collecting on it. Buying debt is not illegal and neither is attempts to collect. They may need to show where the debt originated from, but not that you ever had a contract specifically with them. If they had to show proof that you sepcifically had a contract with "them" then they would never be able to sue. But, that's a great idea and may put the brakes on alot of shady collection agencies, if it was ever made a law.

This isn't neccessarily correct. A lot of cases have been won by debtors raising a chain of custody issue on old debts. Does the party suing you have standing to sue?
You state that you don't have to prove you owe them. But, what would happen if you paid this current collection agency and a year later, another collector claimed you owed the same debt? This is a viable issue that needs to be determined at trial.
And, you've every right to wage an agressive defense. Can they prove the debt is yours and the amount they're suing for is correct? It's not a slam dunk as many debt collectors are finding out.

http://www.insidearm.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=6714

Keepmine, every time I see you posting those creditor links I am so grateful -- I have learned SO much by reading them. Of course, I can't read too much at a time without the appropriate meds, they do tend to piss me off something fierce, but looking through those sites has been *quite* the education. Thank you!!! :)

This isn't neccessarily correct. A lot of cases have been won by debtors raising a chain of custody issue on old debts. Does the party suing you have standing to sue?
You state that you don't have to prove you owe them. But, what would happen if you paid this current collection agency and a year later, another collector claimed you owed the same debt? This is a viable issue that needs to be determined at trial.
And, you've every right to wage an agressive defense. Can they prove the debt is yours and the amount they're suing for is correct? It's not a slam dunk as many debt collectors are finding out.

http://www.insidearm.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=6714

I've been reading some of those threads too, and find it hilarious when a collector gets jammed up. I agree, it is tougher for them to prove the life of the debt when they get old. There's a myriad of different circumstances that could could put either the debtor or collector in a bind as a debt ages and changes hands. From my reading, it seems judges being either debtor friendly or creditor friendly being the biggest obstacle (or advantage). But, for the most part, validation is an easy task for CA's. For the purposes of folks that are recent in their delinquencies I'm sure the validation will be a no-brainer almost every time. My point was that a collector doesn't need to show that I had a contract specifically with them in order for them to have legal grounds to collect on it. All they need to do is prove the debt is mine and they have grounds to collect on it.

Let me take a stab at clearing things up based on my understanding...

First thing to clarify is "validation" vs "verification". These words are often used interchangeable, but refer to two different aspects of the FDCPA.

Validation, in terms of FDCPA, refers to the "Collections Agencies" validation notice that they must include in initial communications with the debtor. The validation notice is what informs the debtor that they have a "right" to verification. Validation is also an important word because as part of a "debtors" right to verification, they debtor must "dispute" the validity of the debt. But the debtor does NOT request validation of their debt, the debtor request verification.

As part of that "validation" notice, the collection agency must disclose the amount of debt owed and the name of the debtor.

So what is "verification". Unfortunately, the FDCPA did not fully define what constitutes sufficient verification, 15 USC 1692g(b). First and foremost, the debtor should make the request in writing, and in that letter, the debtor must say something to the effect of '"I dispute the validity of xyz debt." (you are not required to give specifics of your dispute, but, your reasons are important for purposes of what the CA must do in response to a verification of the request). The reason verification is a vague concept is that there can be many reasons for a dispute...the general rule for verification is that the CA has complied with verification if the information provided by the CA is "responsive" to the debtor's request.

Thus, a debtor cannot simply say, I dispute this debt, please verify. Unfortunately, even though you do not need to specify the grounds for your dispute (for purposes of kicking in certain provisions of the FDCPA related to verification, i.e. the CA must stop collection efforts while verification is sought), the debtor will need to specify what is required for the CA to verify. The FTC guidelines basically say that a CA would probably have to have the following from the creditor in order to respond to a verification request...itemization of the of the amount of the debt, the name of the debtor, a statement that the debt has not been paid.

In essence, all the collection agency need to do to verify a debt is show "something" that identifies the debtor, and identifies the amount owed. In fact, it was held in Spears v Brenna 745 N.E.2d 862 that a CA providing the original contract was actually "insufficient" to verify the debt...reason being, it did not indicate the amount owed and an accounting of the amount owed. For credit cards, the most recent account statement is probably sufficient to satisfy verification. Thus, even if the debtor specifically requests the "original signed contract" the CA is allowed to "editorialize" that request and send you something that accomplishes a similar purpose, i.e. that your name is somehow associated with the account in question.

Practical Advice...if you have collection agencies coming after you, you should ALWAYS request verification, but realize, that verification is largely an empty concept. Unless you actually dispute the debt, or are attempting to "really" bring an FDCPA violation action, all verification accomplishes is buy you a few weeks where collection activity must cease while the CA gets verification, once they have verified, regardless if the verification is sufficient, you are back to square one. CA's violate the FDCPA all the time, but the burden is on you to bring the action against them, so realize that unless YOU are willing to enforce your rights under the FDCPA, verification is a useless concept to you. Also, keep in mind that FDCPA claims, and other similar claims, are NOT defenses to you owing the debt, assuming the debt is legitimate in the first place (which is the case most the time), you still owe the debt regardless of how unscrupulous the CA's or Debt Buyer's become.

A note on chain of custody: it is not clear that CA's need to verify the chain of custody as part of the debt verification process, the chain of custody is raised as a defense to a lawsuit to collect the debt from the debtor.

HHM, awesome! Thank you so much for weighing in on this and clearing things up.

The problem then becomes, under the context of bankruptcy because this is a bankruptcy forum and we are in the "Collection Problems" area, a CA or junk debt buyer can send you notice that you owe them money and if you ask for verification, all they need to do is send you your last statement - even though this debt was included and discharged in a bankruptcy.

Having said that, since a particular debt was included and discharged in a bankruptcy, the CA or junk debt buyer is simply out of luck and are unable to collect on that particular debt since it would be a violation of the bankruptcy stay for that particular debt, correct?

(I hope I made sense with my question.)

Having said that, since a particular debt was included and discharged in a bankruptcy, the CA or junk debt buyer is simply out of luck and are unable to collect on that particular debt since it would be a violation of the bankruptcy stay for that particular debt, correct?

Yes...if the debt is discharged, that is an absolute defense to collectability.

Like I already said, validation or verification, whatever you want to call it, is just a stall tactic by debtors, when they know the debt is truly theirs. The only time it really becomes important is when someone is trying to collect on a debt that you know, 100%, is NOT yours.

I've been sending DV requests. My goal is to delay things until I can BK, collect some fines, let them know I can prove it to the judge I'm judgment proof (per my attorney) and show the CA's I'll make it as difficult and expensive as I can for them to collect my debt. Here's the DV results so far -

- 8 of 20 accounts went to CA's at 5-6 months from last payment. The CA’s all look to be representing the original creditors as the debt payments would go to the original creditor.

- Sent 8 DV's certified, return receipt in the October-November timeframe.

- 2 CA's responded with account statements after about a month but haven’t started collection efforts back up

- 2 CA's ignored my request and continued collection activities including letters several weeks after my DV request telling me to pay the debt. In December I sent follow up letters with my original request, their latest collection letter, original letter return receipt, telling them they're in violation of the law and I want my DV. I haven't heard anything back after 3 weeks. but they did stop calling. One of these CA's has my largest debt, $50k. I’ll be happy to share this with the judge if they file a lawsuit. Actually I wish they would violate the fair credit act a few more times so I can prove deliberate violations.

- 4 CA's stopped collection efforts and I haven't heard a thing from them. No DV.

- Two new CA’s starting calling a few weeks ago but haven’t sent me the letter notifying me I can DV. I thought they had 5 days to send it.

Any feedback appreciated as I don't know much about this or what's to come.

Thanks

When a "new" CA calls always ask for the name of the person and the address. Document the date and time of call. If they continue to call, you might tell them you will look for their written notice per FDCPA. You might consider recording such a call.

I had accounts with 7 CA's a while back. One verified as they were local and I worked out a deal with them.

Two were not registered in my state, but a complaint to my state consumer finance division of teh attorney general's office shut them down.

I'm still struggling with making payments, even agreed upon ones, after 15 months. I still don't know if I will eventually file.

I could not pay everyone this month and will return to default on 3 - 4 accounts. They are all in the $800 - $1800 dollar range. I'm likely to let these go to small claims and allow a default judgment. I can afford 25% wage garnishment, so these would actually get paid off under garnishment.

I have some very large CC accounts $5K - $12K. If I have to default on these (again) then I'll probably have to wait for them to go to CA's and request verification and eventually a cease and desist commuications letter.

I have no other assets other than wages. I'm paid well and can live with judgments and future garnishments for a while.

The DV letters do seem to work.

As more and more folks in financial crises learn their "rights" to request even simple information and more and more folks default on unsecured debts, I believe the CA's will have their hand's full.

I know I owe debts to creditors, but I still will ask for verification with any third-party collectors. A person owes it to themself to make sure the "t's" are crossed and the "i's" are dotted.

I've been sending DV requests. My goal is to delay things until I can BK, collect some fines, let them know I can prove it to the judge I'm judgment proof (per my attorney) and show the CA's I'll make it as difficult and expensive as I can for them to collect my debt. Here's the DV results so far -

- 8 of 20 accounts went to CA's at 5-6 months from last payment. The CA’s all look to be representing the original creditors as the debt payments would go to the original creditor.

- Sent 8 DV's certified, return receipt in the October-November timeframe.

- 2 CA's responded with account statements after about a month but haven’t started collection efforts back up

- 2 CA's ignored my request and continued collection activities including letters several weeks after my DV request telling me to pay the debt. In December I sent follow up letters with my original request, their latest collection letter, original letter return receipt, telling them they're in violation of the law and I want my DV. I haven't heard anything back after 3 weeks. but they did stop calling. One of these CA's has my largest debt, $50k. I’ll be happy to share this with the judge if they file a lawsuit. Actually I wish they would violate the fair credit act a few more times so I can prove deliberate violations.

- 4 CA's stopped collection efforts and I haven't heard a thing from them. No DV.

- Two new CA’s starting calling a few weeks ago but haven’t sent me the letter notifying me I can DV. I thought they had 5 days to send it.

Any feedback appreciated as I don't know much about this or what's to come.

Thanks


2 points here. An fdcpa claim won't prevent anyone from suing. You use that as a counterclaim to try and mitogate any award the creditor may receive. Secondly, you won't get rich off an FDCPA suit. Damages are capped at $1K per action-not per violation.
A few states have laws that are similar to the FDCPA that allow for higher damages.

2 points here. An fdcpa claim won't prevent anyone from suing. You use that as a counterclaim to try and mitogate any award the creditor may receive. Secondly, you won't get rich off an FDCPA suit. Damages are capped at $1K per action-not per violation.
A few states have laws that are similar to the FDCPA that allow for higher damages.

What's the difference between an action and a violation ?

I believe it's $1000 plus attorney's fees so I was planning to review with an attorney once I get multiple violations from the same CA.

Thanks for the info.

When a "new" CA calls always ask for the name of the person and the address. Document the date and time of call. If they continue to call, you might tell them you will look for their written notice per FDCPA. You might consider recording such a call.

I had accounts with 7 CA's a while back. One verified as they were local and I worked out a deal with them.

Two were not registered in my state, but a complaint to my state consumer finance division of teh attorney general's office shut them down.

I'm still struggling with making payments, even agreed upon ones, after 15 months. I still don't know if I will eventually file.

I could not pay everyone this month and will return to default on 3 - 4 accounts. They are all in the $800 - $1800 dollar range. I'm likely to let these go to small claims and allow a default judgment. I can afford 25% wage garnishment, so these would actually get paid off under garnishment.

I have some very large CC accounts $5K - $12K. If I have to default on these (again) then I'll probably have to wait for them to go to CA's and request verification and eventually a cease and desist commuications letter.

I have no other assets other than wages. I'm paid well and can live with judgments and future garnishments for a while.

The DV letters do seem to work.

Thanks for sharing your actual experience. I know my mileage may vary.

What's the difference between an action and a violation ?

I believe it's $1000 plus attorney's fees so I was planning to review with an attorney once I get multiple violations from the same CA.

Thanks for the info.

Per action means a series of violations involving the same agency. You don't get $1K per individual violation. And yes, if you prevail you do get legal fees awarded. Here's the section of the FDCPA that deals with civil liability. Note too, that the award is set by the judge and is capped at $1K.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/FDCPA.shtml#813

Per action means a series of violations involving the same agency. You don't get $1K per individual violation. And yes, if you prevail you do get legal fees awarded. Here's the section of the FDCPA that deals with civil liability. Note too, that the award is set by the judge and is capped at $1K.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/FDCPA.shtml#813

That is incorrect...it is $1000 per each "act" that violates the code.

So if the CA has 20 violations against 1 debtor, the debtor could conceivably get $20,000 in statutory damages, plus attorney's fees.

No, it's a $1K per action-not per violation.

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=20056

Look at the laundry list of damages-only $1000 per plantiff for the FDCPA violations.

The court Delores Maddux $250,000 in damages and $1,000 in statutory damages; Gilbert Maddux was awarded $254,253 in damages, and $1,000 in statutory damages; Jeni Maddux $109,717 in damages, and $1,000 in statutory damages. The three were awarded jointly another $3,117.

BTW, this was a really nasty collection effort. I've seen the actual ruling and it's replete with vulgar racial slurs. These guys likely still drag their knuckles in the sand.

You are correct...I over stated the issue.

The law is somewhat unsettled (nationwide), the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit courts have ruled that statutory damages are $1000 per action (per lawsuit), regardless of the number of violations alledged. There are no, or limited rulings in the other circuits...mainly because these types of cases are routinely settled. Some trial courts hav not limited the jury to awarding only $1000 in statutory damages, but in those cases, the jury only awarded $1000 so there was nothing to appeal.

If I am forwarding the initial letter from the CA to my attorney is it safe to assume that he is asking for verification or should i send a letter asking for it? My attorney says to send these things to him but what if he doesnt do anything with it? I asked the paralegal one time and she said the atty would only call me if there was something i needed to do.

If I am forwarding the initial letter from the CA to my attorney is it safe to assume that he is asking for verification or should i send a letter asking for it? My attorney says to send these things to him but what if he doesnt do anything with it? I asked the paralegal one time and she said the atty would only call me if there was something i needed to do.

Are you filing soon? If so, there's no reason to do anything. The only reason to send out a DV letter would be to drag out the process so they don't have time to garnish before you file.

If I am forwarding the initial letter from the CA to my attorney is it safe to assume that he is asking for verification or should i send a letter asking for it? My attorney says to send these things to him but what if he doesnt do anything with it? I asked the paralegal one time and she said the atty would only call me if there was something i needed to do.

Unless your attorney told you otherwise, your attorney probably only wants the letter so he has the name and address for the CA to include them on the creditor matrix of the BK forms. Unless you are PAYING the attorney to do some FDCPA work, I would NOT assume he is doing anything more then putting those letters in your file.

I'm not filing until April. Should I send a verification letter to slow down any suit? I have read that a verification letter can sometimes actually bring on a suit. A guy called from the CA and said that it was for my Sears Card but the collection letter doesnt even reference sears

If you'll be filing in 3 months I wouldn't worry about it. Unless your lawyer tells you to do something else, just give them your lawyers info and forget about it. Remember it takes time for the whole process to evolve to the point that you are garnished. If they call your lawyer to verify, that you are in fact filing, that will probably slow them down anyway.

How is a CA required to prove that Statue of Limitations has not expired?

Isn't that required to collect on a debt, if it is past statue can they still pursue collections?

How is a CA required to prove that Statue of Limitations has not expired?

Isn't that required to collect on a debt, if it is past statue can they still pursue collections?


The SOL is an affirmative defense to a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with attempting to collect a debt.

The SOL is an affirmative defense to a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with attempting to collect a debt.

So CA CAN legally Collect debt past statute of Limitations?