Validation is this good enough?

[Qtip]

Attorney sends collection notice, validation is requested within the first 30 days. Attorney goes to oc "credit card co" they give attorney copy of the monthly statements.

At this point is this enough validation of the debt?

[VexatiousLitigant]

Possibly. It beats a kick in the nuts.

[VexatiousLitigant]

I always go back to Guerrero v RJM Acquisitions to determine if they verified the debt.

The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred. [...] The letter also failed to indicate whether interest was factored into the current balance, and, if so, at what rate and for what time period.

1) Amount or basis of the charges
2) Dates which charges were incurred.
3) Interest rate & time period. (Other fees as well).

[hannah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip Attorney sends collection notice, validation is requested within the first 30 days. Attorney goes to oc "credit card co" they give attorney copy of the monthly statements. At this point is this enough validation of the debt?

How many statements? What year(s) are they from? Are they consecutive? Are the amounts valid? Are they on regular paper or statement paper?

[roybean]

Proper validation of debt

Guerrero v. RMJ Acquisitions

This person's belief has nothing to do with validation. Again, the requirement is to contact the OC, and then forward the information to the consumer.

See also Young v. Meyer & Njus, P.A., 1997 WL 452685 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 1997). Court refused to dismiss allegation that § 1692f was violated by attorney who verified complaint based on the review of a computer print-out from the creditor which provided insufficient information to prove the debt at trial.

Over in caselaw:
Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo

With respect to Count II, the district court determined that Appellants' counsel, in a telephone conversation with Gallerizzo where he stated that the verification that was needed related to legal fees, "waived whatever claim that the Chaudhrys might make in regard to the alleged failure to verify the inspection fees." Assuming that there had been no waiver, however, the court determined that "Gallerizzo adequately verified the amount of inspection fees" and "then sent the Chaudhrys' counsel a letter ... including written verification of these fees." The court found no duty for Gallerizzo to have assembled supporting documentation.

Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. See Azar v. Hayter, 874 F. Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Fla.), aff'd, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1048, 133 L. Ed. 2d 666, 116 S. Ct. 712 (1996). Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only [**24] intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.


And what VL said above; Concentrate on the language of the law; THEY ARE TO OBTAIN AND MAIL TO THE CONSUMER.

What are they claiming tha you owe?
What is showing on your CR?
Are the dates and charges off?
Did they tack on any fees and interest?

There's a lot to look at.

[Qtip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant I always go back to Guerrero v RJM Acquisitions to determine if they verified the debt. The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred. [...] The letter also failed to indicate whether interest was factored into the current balance, and, if so, at what rate and for what time period. 1) Amount or basis of the charges 2) Dates which charges were incurred. 3) Interest rate & time period. (Other fees as well).

Since they submited copy of billing statements, one through three are covered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah How many statements? What year(s) are they from? Are they consecutive? Are the amounts valid? Are they on regular paper or statement paper?

They submited statements since inception of the account, the OC faxed a copy of the statements to atttorney. The amounts look valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean Proper validation of debt Guerrero v. RMJ Acquisitions This person's belief has nothing to do with validation. Again, the requirement is to contact the OC, and then forward the information to the consumer. See also Young v. Meyer & Njus, P.A., 1997 WL 452685 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 1997). Court refused to dismiss allegation that § 1692f was violated by attorney who verified complaint based on the review of a computer print-out from the creditor which provided insufficient information to prove the debt at trial. Over in caselaw: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo With respect to Count II, the district court determined that Appellants' counsel, in a telephone conversation with Gallerizzo where he stated that the verification that was needed related to legal fees, "waived whatever claim that the Chaudhrys might make in regard to the alleged failure to verify the inspection fees." Assuming that there had been no waiver, however, the court determined that "Gallerizzo adequately verified the amount of inspection fees" and "then sent the Chaudhrys' counsel a letter ... including written verification of these fees." The court found no duty for Gallerizzo to have assembled supporting documentation. Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. See Azar v. Hayter, 874 F. Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Fla.), aff'd, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1048, 133 L. Ed. 2d 666, 116 S. Ct. 712 (1996). Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only [**24] intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. And what VL said above; Concentrate on the language of the law; THEY ARE TO OBTAIN AND MAIL TO THE CONSUMER. What are they claiming tha you owe? What is showing on your CR? Are the dates and charges off? Did they tack on any fees and interest? There's a lot to look at.

Do not know if they added fees to interest, will pull my file tomorrow "tried today" but the way I get PG to allow unlimited pulls requires that I weit 24 hours from registration before I can pull my first report.

[CtrlAltDelete]

RE: Roybean's legislative hist - what, if anything was provided to show you are the correct Qtip?

[VexatiousLitigant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDelete RE: Roybean's legislative hist - what, if anything was provided to show you are the correct Qtip?

Bills with his address presumably.

This is not a battle I'd fight.

[Qtip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant Bills with his address presumably. This is not a battle I'd fight.

I see why you would not fight it, however this one is borderline. I think I remember that they must obtain a fresh copy of the validation from OC on its letter head? The copy of the statements are generic, not a fax or anything.

They sent me another collection notice today

[centex]

There is no requirement that it be on OC letterhead. Obtaining from the OC could be as simple as some bean-counter writing the numbers down on TP and offering the editorial comment by wiping his/her ass with it before transmitting it.

If the billing statements contain a final figure that matches what is being claimed, then you need to look at whether a court would find it compelling in the event that the matter moved to litigation.

[drivel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip I see why you would not fight it, however this one is borderline. I think I remember that they must obtain a fresh copy of the validation from OC on its letter head? The copy of the statements are generic, not a fax or anything. They sent me another collection notice today

Wow the collection industry can't win can it. On on hand you complain you never get validation, then when you do, you try to find ways it doesn't meet the standard. Validation is a piece of paper that says who the creditor is and the amount of the debt. I reckon you have that fella.

It does not have to be on letter head, stone tablets or sheepskin scrolls. The legislative intent is that you now know the amount of the debt and name of the original creditor.

Congrats on your validation, now the 64K question is what are you going to do with it?

[boyblue_77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDelete RE: Roybean's legislative hist - what, if anything was provided to show you are the correct Qtip?

Exactly. IMO, a debt is not properly validated and/or verified until they provide me with a copy of my credit application or agreement with my signature on it.

[boyblue_77]

Also, have you deleted your old addresses on your reports? What I've done, not intentionally mind you, is moved around quite a bit over the years and I've disputed every old address on my reports with only the new address reporting. Old addresses tied to my charge-offs, and now the statement addresses on the charge-offs no longer match my reports.

Just a thought.

[centex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyblue_77 Exactly. IMO, a debt is not properly validated and/or verified until they provide me with a copy of my credit application or agreement with my signature on it.

Unless you are claiming ID Theft, the application/agreement generally does nothing in terms of proving up what is owed. And you will find yourself in a rather tenuous position if you tried to articulate to a court that the document was required to prove up a debt for which plenty of other paperwork exists that links you to the debt.

And, further, given that much of what people are now being dunned for is from an era in which electronic signatures are accepted, your demand for "signed" paperwork will be one that potentially places you in the position of having to pay for the forensic expert to claim that any IP data is not associated with an internet account you once held.

Quite frankly, you would be a plaintiff's wet dream because of the extra fees that they will be able to have included in a judgment that was awarded to them...

[boyblue_77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex Unless you are claiming ID Theft, the application/agreement generally does nothing in terms of proving up what is owed. And you will find yourself in a rather tenuous position if you tried to articulate to a court that the document was required to prove up a debt for which plenty of other paperwork exists that links you to the debt. And, further, given that much of what people are now being dunned for is from an era in which electronic signatures are accepted, your demand for "signed" paperwork will be one that potentially places you in the position of having to pay for the forensic expert to claim that any IP data is not associated with an internet account you once held. Quite frankly, you would be a plaintiff's wet dream because of the extra fees that they will be able to have included in a judgment that was awarded to them...

Well, I have to say, after demanding for my signature on applications and agreements, NONE have been able to provide it. They go away, never to be heard from again. Further, there is no way for the credit card companies to find a signature as there is none; all my charge off cards have been processed online. Now, you mentioned something about a forensic expert to connect me with IP addresses. First, I highly doubt they will spend that much money and time to do so. Second of all, if my mind serves me right, those applications were done on a computer and ISP under my roommate's name 5-6 years ago. Last, but not least, the SOL on all my charge-offs passed about 3 months ago (or so).

[centex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyblue_77 Now, you mentioned something about a forensic expert to connect me with IP addresses. First, I highly doubt they will spend that much money and time to do so. Second of all, if my mind serves me right, those applications were done on a computer and ISP under my roommate's name 5-6 years ago.

If you were claiming you never had the account, there are some courts that would put the forensic burden upon you. It does not take as much as you seem to believe to link someone to an account. And when confronted with enough evidence that is persuasive to a court, you could reasonably expect that some Courts will grant the motion that would be filed by the plaintiff's counsel.

Quote:

Last, but not least, the SOL on all my charge-offs passed about 3 months ago (or so).

The really sad thing is that you seem to be proud of that fact.

[spinn]

I can not see how this would not be considered proper validation.

With that being said.....is it reporting correctly? Have you disputed what is not reporting correctly with the CRAs?

They will/have screwed up....they cant help themselves. It is just a matter of finding out where and how.

[boyblue_77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex If you were claiming you never had the account, there are some courts that would put the forensic burden upon you. It does not take as much as you seem to believe to link someone to an account. And when confronted with enough evidence that is persuasive to a court, you could reasonably expect that some Courts will grant the motion that would be filed by the plaintiff's counsel. The really sad thing is that you seem to be proud of that fact.

I am. Now I can tell the collection agencies, JDBs, and OCs to go f**k themselves as the law is protecting me now!

[VexatiousLitigant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex If you were claiming you never had the account, there are some courts that would put the forensic burden upon you.

How would you go about proving a negative?

[spinn]

And............why are we trying to prove the general with the specific.

There is always one example somewhere in the country that is contra to the other 95%. In that dynamic...every statement can be contradicted.

[centex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant How would you go about proving a negative?

If one is confronted with a boatload of statements and other materials that support the claimed amount and a debtor is still wanting to maintain "I need a signed application," then the Court is going to put that burden on the debtor.

Quite frankly, if they come up with the statements that a Court will find compelling, then one needs to either be willing to offer up a police report claiming ID theft or one ought to be negotiating the best deal possible that keeps them out of a judgement.

[roybean]

Wasn't there a case that Tower talked about in which the Plaintiff would have won, but kept insisting on a signed application and the CA produced it and the plaintiff lost???

I can't remember which case, but I am sure I remember him talking about it.

[Qtip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drivel Wow the collection industry can't win can it. On on hand you complain you never get validation, then when you do, you try to find ways it doesn't meet the standard. Validation is a piece of paper that says who the creditor is and the amount of the debt. I reckon you have that fella. It does not have to be on letter head, stone tablets or sheepskin scrolls. The legislative intent is that you now know the amount of the debt and name of the original creditor. Congrats on your validation, now the 64K question is what are you going to do with it?

When we ask for validation, we are just telling them to go away. You are not supposed to provide it

On a serious note, I understand what you are saying, however. I have always said, what it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Many collection agencies violate the rights of the consumers knowingly playing the odds and abusing the system. You think that I feel any pity for all the CA's that LK allegedly sued while allegedly taking advantage of the system? Sorry but the answer is no, the door goes both ways, some guys on your side will take advantage while some on the consumer side will return the favor. I believe that this is the only way that we preserve a balance, we are finally making some head way to the point that CA's are more often than not returning the validation. That is good for your industry and good for the consumers! If you honestly think that only CA's should be allowed to abuse the system then you are being biased.

What am I doing, with it. Too early to tell, maybe wait on some case law that allows me to sue the Ca

[drivel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip When we ask for validation, we are just telling them to go away. You are not supposed to provide it I know, that's why anyone who gets validation shits themselves and puts up a post like the one you did. On a serious note, I understand what you are saying, however. I have always said, what it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Many collection agencies violate the rights of the consumers knowingly playing the odds and abusing the system. You think that I feel any pity for all the CA's that LK allegedly sued while allegedly taking advantage of the system? Sorry but the answer is no, the door goes both ways, some guys on your side will take advantage while some on the consumer side will return the favor. I believe that this is the only way that we preserve a balance, we are finally making some head way to the point that CA's are more often than not returning the validation. That is good for your industry and good for the consumers! If you honestly think that only CA's should be allowed to abuse the system then you are being biased. Hey, abusing the system is the american way. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than if every ca provided validation upon request. Whether that's good for the consumers depends on your point of view. Incidently I think it is because it would help motivate them to enter payment arrangements and thererfore resolve their debts more efficiently. What am I doing, with it. Too early to tell, maybe wait on some case law that allows me to sue the Ca Or the sol to lapse, whichever comes first.

[Qtip]

Here is to you! I think that it helps consumers in many ways when CA's collect by the book. First and foremost, they consumer does not have to go trough the frustration that some of us have dealt with when a CA is calling you every five minutes "no exaggeration" just to upset you. Been there done that!

Secondly when a CA provides validation, the consumer knows that they are paying the right party and not a scammer that sent a bill to half the country hoping to make some quick Christmas money.

Third, consumers will not have to waste countless hours in a forum to learn how to protect and enforce their rights. When good CA's happen it is a win, win for everyone!

Except for me in this case