In response to a PM - a validation letter

I have read all the silly validation demands people send in and plaster all over the internet. Some of those letters simply prove to the shady operators that you are an easy mark and mean nothing to responsible CAs.

Simply put, you can no longer meet the least informed consumer standard when you (mis)cite seventeen different laws and court cases.

Since I was asked privately and I think it'll be a good thing, here is what I would suggest for a validation letter.

Your Name
Your Addy
City, st ,zip

CA name
addy
City, st ,zip

Date: ___

Re: Acct # __________

To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on January 1, 2007. As I do not recognize the debt in question, I am exercising my rights under the FDCPA to demand validation of the debt.

(If already reported to CBR)
Since this has already been reported to my credit report, I expect you to update the reporting to show that the debt is disputed, as required by law.

I look forward to working with you resolve this issue and will be eagerly watching the mailbox for the validation I requested. I trust that you will have the documents mailed to me within 30 days of receiving this letter and will, of course, cease all collections actions until validation is provided. Sincerely,

Sign it.

USE THIS FREE OF CHARGE, BUT DO NOT SELL IT OR CHARGE FOR A COPY - EVER. MY LETTER IS COVERED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE

Click to expand...

That is all that is needed. Any more and you look like an idiot or a target.

I applaud your attempt to present a 'simple' validation letter... however, I still prefer, and will continue to refer to, the one at:
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forms/sampleletter9.shtml

Send the following by CERTIFIED RRR:
===========================
Your Name
123 Your Street Address
Your City, ST 01234

ABC Collections
123 NotOnYourLife Ave
Chicago, IL

Date:

Re: Acct # XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on (date). Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested.

This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you.

Please provide me with the following:

# What the money you say I owe is for;
# Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;
# Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;
# Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;
# Identify the original creditor;
# Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account
# Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state
# Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent

At this time I will also inform you that if your offices have reported invalidated information to any of the 3 major Credit Bureau’s (Equifax, Experian or TransUnion) this action might constitute fraud under both Federal and State Laws. Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found on any of my credit reports by your company or the company that you represent I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following:

* Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
* Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
* Defamation of Character

If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested in the following Declaration, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all collection activity must cease and desist.

Also during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with my legal counsel for suit. This includes any listing any information to a credit reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated or verifying an account as accurate when in fact there is no provided proof that it is.

If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices to my home or to my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by USPS.

It would be advisable that you assure that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose.

Best Regards,

Your Signature
Your Name
==========================================

Jetx -- I am curious why you think that is a better letter. The FDCPA does not require the CA to provide most of what the letter "demands".

Also, I don't think all the threats to sue really scares the CA. Do you?

Finally, in my opinion, the FDCPA does not provide for a "limited C&D". I've never seen a CA yet who honored the "contact me only in writing business". Are you aware of any that have or aware of any case law requiring the CA to honor the limited C&D? Don't you think the C&D pretty much pushes the CA to a sue/don't sue decision?

PS. I'm not being cute. I really do want to understand your thinking.

Debt Guy said:

Jetx -- I am curious why you think that is a better letter. The FDCPA does not require the CA to provide most of what the letter "demands".

Click to expand...

You're correct... however, most of the items listed are basic contract law. Here is a breakdown (as I see it):

# What the money you say I owe is for;
FDCPA

# Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;
Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber and Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072,

# Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;
Simple contract law.

# Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;
FDCPA

# Identify the original creditor;
FDCPA

# Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account
Not required by FDCPA... but very reasonable to ask.

# Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state
Not required by FDCPA... but, again, reasonable to ask.

# Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent
Not required by FDCPA... but, again, reasonable to ask.

Also, I don't think all the threats to sue really scares the CA. Do you?

Click to expand...

Not intended to scare them... just to put them on notice that they have legal obligations... and consequences if they don't.

Finally, in my opinion, the FDCPA does not provide for a "limited C&D". I've never seen a CA yet who honored the "contact me only in writing business". Are you aware of any that have or aware of any case law requiring the CA to honor the limited C&D? Don't you think the C&D pretty much pushes the CA to a sue/don't sue decision?

Click to expand...

I guess you missed where the letter says "I would also like to request, in writing.. "

Click to expand...

Debt Guy said:

JAre you aware of any that have or aware of any case law requiring the CA to honor the limited C&D? Don't you think the C&D pretty much pushes the CA to a sue/don't sue decision?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any. Personally, I think that kind of language is used by people trying to trap the CA into a violation -- NOT that I think JETX would ever do that, but it is a favorite pastime among debtors.

The CA has only two choices: Treat it as a full CD (safest), or ignore it(increased potential for litigation).

While nobody wants to go to court, letters like that and the anti-CA attitudes are forcing many CAs to adopt much stronger legal strategies. That is bad for consumers, but much better for attorneys and judgment enforcement specialist ... hey wait.... 2+2=4 ... I am doing JE on the side now ... --- yup either letter is good. So where are your assets at?

I think some of these are reasonable

Please provide me with the following:

# What the money you say I owe is for;

Perfectly Reasonable (i.e. Credit Card, Utility Bill, Car Loan, Mortgage, etc)


# Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;

People should know if the amount increased, by how much and for what (i.e. interest, court costs, attorneys fees, etc)


# Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;

I think that creditors and collectors should be able to prove that a person owes a debt, and for how much.

# Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;

Again, this should be obtainable through the courts or the collector itself.


# Identify the original creditor;

This again goes alone with proof that the person owes it.


# Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account

I beleive that all debtors should check this. Personally if it were me, I would extend the FDCPA to require all judges check this in lawsuits, and if this is expired I would require courts to dismiss cases brought by collectors and creditors WITH PREJUDICE, and the debtor would not be liable for attorneys fees in this case. This would stop debt collectors from exploiting people who don't know their rights.

# Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state

Again, this protects debtors from scammers posing as people their aren't. Also, I see no problem with debtors know who is collecting their debts and that the agency doing it is legal.

# Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent

Again, reasonable contact info for correspondance.



If I was a debt collector, I think that providing all of this info is reasonable, and that I think that anyone that is disputing a debt they may or may not owe, that they are accused of owing should be able to obtain the basic facts about the debt they owe.

StephenH said:

If I was a debt collector, I think that providing all of this info is reasonable, and that I think that anyone that is disputing a debt they may or may not owe, that they are accused of owing should be able to obtain the basic facts about the debt they owe.

Click to expand...

No. If you were a debt collector for more than two months you would know that most debtors are liars and a lot of them try to work the system to avoid paying their debts.

The reason the system is in place is to protect consumers from shady collectors.

Kanchazi said:

The reason the system is in place is to protect consumers from shady collectors.

Click to expand...

That must be why you have been sued -- how many times now?

There is a difference between lying and finding out the facts

I understand people try to get out of debt without paying. I don't encourage this at all. I agree with debtcollector' on this. However, there is a reason why someone I think should be able to obtain the facts of a debt a collector claims they owe:

1) The person may have forgotten about a debt, and was not aware of it, as it is from years ago

2) If a person is a victim of indentity theft, they should be able to work to get this corrected. The person who was a victim of identity theft should not be liable for the debt caused by an indentity theif whole the persons indentity. Instead, the debt collector should go after the person who committed the theft instead.

3) With the amount of bank mergers, and the like they may not know the new name the company that owns the debt. The same is true if it gets sold to more than one collection agency.

4) To be able to protect themselves from telemarketing scammers who pose as people who claim they owe something but don't.

5) If a mistake is made by the creditor or collector that causes an innocent victim, due to incorrect directory information, a database error, or someone with the same name.

6) That one should be able to get legal proof in writing of what they owe.


I think that providing this info to a debtor for these reasons is reasonable. I am not encouraging anyone to lie or use this to defraud a creditor by any means. However, I feel there should be some recourse if there is an innocent victim, and that people should be able to obtain proof of old debts in writing.

StephenH said:

I think that providing this info to a debtor for these reasons is reasonable. I am not encouraging anyone to lie or use this to defraud a creditor by any means. However, I feel there should be some recourse if there is an innocent victim, and that people should be able to obtain proof of old debts in writing.

Click to expand...

CAs have no problem providing validation. However, realistically, most of the validation requests -- especially ones that threaten and demand 27 things are people that have no intent to pay.

When you are dealing with tertiary or later debt, it isn't worth responding. The CA should just package the debt and sell it, or sue. Responding just drives up costs on debt that is mostly going to require legal to collect.

DC

StephenH;1570815]

# Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account

I beleive that all debtors should check this. Personally if it were me, I would extend the FDCPA to require all judges check this in lawsuits, and if this is expired I would require courts to dismiss cases brought by collectors and creditors WITH PREJUDICE, and the debtor would not be liable for attorneys fees in this case. This would stop debt collectors from exploiting people who don't know their rights.

Click to expand...

this is the only one I have real trouble with. All the others could be workable some way.

You are suggesing the courts spend their resources to prove a defendents case in a civil suit. Not only would this add to the cost of maintaining a court system but it would unjustly benefit one of the parties over the other.

Simply stating a debt is beyond the SOL is not as easy as it sounds. Although there are many debts this would work with, there are many debts, especially interstate debts or debts owed by a person who hase lived in more than one state during the accumulation of time counted against the SOL.

There are tolling and borrowing statutes that may apply. As well, you are asking the courts to investigate cases that involve other states laws.

Do you want your tax dollars spent to investigate every debt involved civil suit, especially the jerk's who is intentionally dodging his/her debts which eventually cost everybody more?

I can see the possibility of requiring a CA include a basic notice that there are SOL's that may be applicable (as a general statement, not to indicate that the specific debt being collected may be beyond a SOL), along with all the "mini-Miranda" statements that are currently required but you must realize an SOL defense is an affirmative defense for a reason. That is because you cannot lay a blanket on the debt and say it is within or past the SOL. A debtor/defendent needs to defend their own case.

another question..

I believe my brother had some debt past SOL. When my brother showed up in court. Somebody somewhere posted a payment to the account a few years earlier. According to the collection Attorney the SOL was still in effect.

How can you prove in court the person did not make the payment? Actually, I am not sticking up for my brother at all. He had the credit card, made the charges, he should be obgliated to pay it. It isn't fair for the people who work their buns off with overtime, 2nd and 3rd jobs who pay their debts.

I guess SOL is a good law. I don't want to all of a sudden get billed for a phone bill from 15 years ago. Unfortunately, it does get abused.

SimpleMind said:

How can you prove in court the person did not make the payment?

Click to expand...

You can't. It is impossible to prove a negative. You have to prove that someone else made the payment.

DC

Hmmm

Well if they are saying a person made a payment, I would think they would have proof of it. Unless they say one mailed cash, that would not be very practical. So if they cant proove the form and copy of what they are saying you paid, they lose. Case Closed