Debt verification vs. debt validation...

[fedupw/ccdebt]

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.

[jp2861]

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.

[treehugger1]

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.

[chpxiii]

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.

[keepmine]

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.

[jp2861]

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.

[chpxiii]

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.

[treehugger1]

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!

[tay666]

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.

[jp2861]

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.

[jp2861]

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.

[Lindsay]

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.

[keepmine]

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

[FreshLikeADaisy]

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!!!

[jp2861]

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/messa...&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.