Need Help With Midland Debt Validation Question.

[Anonymous]

I sent Midland a request for debt validation CMRRR on 11/28 and they sent me a letter a few days later asking me to send them any evidence I may have pertaining to the debt.  I didn't send them anything or contact them at all.    Then today I get their validation in the mail postmarked 12/28.... exactly 30 days.... and all it included was some old cell phone bills with my name on them and a cell number I've never been associated with.  In my request for validation I specifically asked for a copy of a signed contract or agreement with myself and verizon, because I know one doesn't exist.   How should I proceed?  

[Anonymous]

Write them again, certified mail and mention the violations they committed by not properly validating the debt.  Re-request a signed contract and be firm, mention if they cannot provide such a thing, they have 72 hours otherwise legal action will be taken.  When you get a confirmation of delivery of the second letter, dispute with the cra's.  Keep copies of both letters and both signed deliveries.  

Is it on your credit?  when was the DoFD?

[guiness56]

They gave you what is required of them.   They are not required to send written contracts, etc.  Was this your first DV request you sent?

Have you ever had a Verizon account?

First I would file a police report for identity theft, then call Verizon and let them know the account is not yours.

Then send a copy of the police report to the CA.

Do not dispute with the CRAs. 

[RobertEG]

Threatening legal action for not validating under the FDCPA, and on top of that, setting a deadline?  Hmmmmm.....

Someone must be reading a different  FDCPA that the one I am unaware of.....

The penaltiy for not validating is cessation of collection activity.  There is no time limit set forth in the FDCPA for verification.  Unless you live in a state such as Texas that has a compulsory debt validation response time, there is no legal basis for the threatened action.  Certainly not under the federal FDCPA.   Their validation is generally considered to have met the requirement under FDCPA 809(b) that they obtain creditor confirmation of the legitimacy of the debt.  The DV process is not a legal discovery process, and does not compel documentation.  Violation under the FDCPA does not occur as a result of failure to provide adequate verification, it occurs when the debt collector resumes collection activity without first providing adequate verification.

If you truly believe the debt is not yours, first get a police report, and then send the OC a copy and demand discovery of their business records pertaining to the account under the provisions of FCRA 609(e).  I would deal with the OC under the FCRA rather than hassle with the debt collector over the adequacy of their verification under the FDCPA.

[Anonymous]

I guess I will look into getting a report filed and go from there.  Thanks for your help.

[Booner72]

I thought if you had something that really and truly wasn't yours, and you got the police report, that you just sent that to the buruea and they'd delete.

ROBERTEG, why would he go to all that trouble to fight the OC then with the police report?  I'm guessing so the OC doesnt come after him again?

[RobertEG]

Filing a police report puts your assertion into a sworn document that carries criminal penalties for knowingly false assertions.  Because of that, the FCRA accepts such an action on the part of a consumer as more than a blanket assertion of potential identity theft.

Filing a police report with the CRA substantiates your claim, but does not substantiate actual identity theft.  It is not grounds that compels CRA deletion.  It does compel the CRA, under the provisions of section 605B, to temporarily block the information from inclusion in subsequent credit reports they issue, but does not delete the reported information from the consumer's credit file. 

By additionally using the police report as means to compel the OC to provide actual documentation on the account, the consumer can build evidence that could ultimately result in total deletion from the consumer's credit file.  Proving a negative (account not mine) is tough.  The FCRA gives a means to prove a postive by challenging your personal authorization of the account itself.

I would use the discovery rights of section 609(e) as a means to compel legal discovery of documentation.

[akemp9480]

I reported Midland to the FTC as violating the law and not providing me actual validation. They sent me the letter requesting me to send them evidence also. That is complete bs. We don't need to prove anything. They need to prove they have a valid debt to collect. Upon my complaint to the FTC Midland deleted the collection off of all CRAs.