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.
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.
Comment