Proper Debt Validation

[cp94550]

I'm a little confused on what is considered proper validation.  I sent a letter to a CA last week regarding an At&t account that has been sent over to a CA.  I don't specifically remember this debt, or the amount being as what is listed, so I am not saying that this is incorrect, just that I don't really remember and the dollar amounts seem too high, etc.

I sent a certified letter saying "I recently pulled my credit report and see a collection account being reported by your company.  In accordance with the FDCPA, please send validation of this debt.

I received a response back today.. it's fairly long so be warned.

"We are in receipet of your correspondence dated November 11, 2011.  Please allow this letter to serve as a response to your validation request.

Cingular/AT&T Wireless, with offices located at 6700 S Centinela 3rd Floor, Culver City, CA 90230, placed the above referenced account with NAME OF CA for servicing on September 2, 2008.  The original services occured at MY HOME ADDRESS November 8, 2005.  The remaining balance on the account, as of the date of this letter is $958.61 ((***Double what is showing on my credit report***))

In your correspondence you allege that NAME OF CA has failed to properly validate your debt pursuant to the protections afforded by the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  Please be advised that the FDCPA does not require that we provide a signed copy of the contrat that you have requested.  See GMAV v. Rocky Joe Gibbs, 2003 WL 314443.  In fact, "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 alleged debt, nor is there any obligation to forward copies of bills, or other detailed evidence of debt.'  Chandry v. Gallerizo, 174 F.3d 394 (Ma. Ct. App. 199) and Stonehard v. Rosenthal, 2001 WL 910771 (S. D. NY 2001).

I believe this adequately respons to your requests.  Please contact your account services, NAME OF CA at PHONE # to make arrangements for payment on this account."

soooooooo.  Is this considered validation?  I can't seem to find any specific answer what validation is exactly.  Since I don't know what the date of first deliquency is, should I assume that it is September of 2008, when the CA states that the account was sent over to them?  Would it be October of 2005, when the account was first opened?  I'm really confused on what I do with this information.

[MarineVietVet]

You'll find different opinions voiced as to what constitutes proper validation. Here is the entire wording of FDCPA 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;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

[llecs]

---

@cp94550 wrote:

soooooooo.  Is this considered validation?  I can't seem to find any specific answer what validation is exactly.  Since I don't know what the date of first deliquency is, should I assume that it is September of 2008, when the CA states that the account was sent over to them?  Would it be October of 2005, when the account was first opened?  I'm really confused on what I do with this information.

---

If the OC or CA are reporting, then the DOFD is listed in some form or another...assuming you pull your reports from the CRAs themselves.

If doubting what is reporting, you can also contact AT&T and ask for the last 4-5 statements. They'll give it to you.

[cp94550]

I'll take a look at my CR and see if it shows. I tried calling AT&T to get any information about the debt since this debt may be mine and I wanted to check details. They can't locate me and have no information. I read the info on debt validation also and according to that, the CA has given me the information. I'm guessing that makes everything legit?

[llecs]

---

@cp94550 wrote:
I'll take a look at my CR and see if it shows. I tried calling AT&T to get any information about the debt since this debt may be mine and I wanted to check details. They can't locate me and have no information. I read the info on debt validation also and according to that, the CA has given me the information. I'm guessing that makes everything legit?

---

IMO it is legit validation if you did business with AT&T (or any of the companies they gobbled up) and legit if the balance appears correct (hence the request for statements). It's not legit if you never did business with AT&T, or the balance is off-base. I'd keep trying AT&T. They have copies if you get transferred around enough. I had a CA collect out of nowhere for AT&T and it took many tries to finally figure out their departments/organizational chart. Or if you feel it is correct, then the next step would be to send a PFD to the CA.

[cp94550]

Owing a debt to AT&T seems possible. Owing $1000 does not. I'll keep up with the searching. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

I don't see any letter.

[llecs]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I don't see any letter.

---

It's not a full letter. It's just 1-2 sentences citing the FDCPA. Examples are on the first post. I've used these DVs with great success.

[RobertEG]

FDCPA 809(b) requires that the debt collector cease collection until they have obtained verification of the debt and passed that finding on to the consumer.

It does not require them to provide any supporting documentation or prove that the debt is legit.

While there admittedly is some case law that does interpret the statute as requring differing degrees of supporting documentation, that is not the norm, and not applicable in jurisdictions outside of that court, and even then, only if affirmed at the appellate level.  You can request more, and hopefully get your case before a judge that agrees with your more restrictive interpretation, but only a judge can enforce that interpretation.

It makes more sense if you consider the alternative... that they were required to provide documentation of the debt.

Documentation is not fact until proven.  The consumer will often contest the sufficiency or accuracy of any documentation provided.

The FDCPA provides no "debt validation tribunal" to review the assertions of both sides, and rule on the factual showing of any documentation.

Only a court, or possible the FTC if an administrative issue, can compel documentation and rule on its contents.

So it remains an undecided contest.

The DV process is there to require debt collectors to cease collection until they have conducted an investigation and reasonably have basis for concluding that the debt is owed by the asserted consumer, and disclose to them the current amount of the debt.  It is a check against debt collectors conducting collection without some degree of investigation of its validity, and providing the consumer with enough info to evaluate how to proceed.  If they provide verification that is knowingly false or not based on a reasonable investigation, or that investigation would reasonably lead to a concludion that the debt cannot be verified as accurate, they run the risk of legal sanction by a court once that documentation finds the light of the courtroom.

[Creditobsessed12]

Where is the sample DV letter?  I went through the thread and do not see it.