04-14-2012 04:41 PM
Just a question regarding the practice of sending out validation letters, the law, our rights as credit consumers:
I've read that there are people who don't believe that it's okay to ask creditors to validate their line on one's credit report if the consumer believes that what the creditor is reporting is accurate. However, I don't understand why it's not a good idea to challenge each creditor, their record keeping and their level of responsibility?
Can someone - in plain English - explain the law the outlines why it would be illegal to benefit (via of TL deletion and the rewards thereof) if a creditor can't be responsible enough to keep proper records to validate and/or confirm a line that they've reported?
04-14-2012 06:28 PM
I don't think there's any law that makes it illegal to benefit from a deletion.
On the repair standpoint, skipping a DV means saving time by going staight to a PFD if you know the debt is yours. Some would argue that skipping a DV means your odds improve for a PFD. And many of us in here who went or are going through repair typically are only aware of a collection after they reported. Per the FDCPA, a DV is only legally effective if mailed within 30 days of their dunning.
IMO, I think you should always send a DV first. I don't think you should do it with the intention of getting a CA off. Why? Because that CA will either sell the debt or pass it back to the OC and they'd send it to another CA. Either way, the next CA can be meaner or more difficult to deal with. And a DV will increase collection activity. However, I think a DV is important before offering a PFD. And even if your statuatory 30 days are expired, I think you should mail a DV anyway, because most will respond anyway.
A DV is important before a PFD because the CA might have sold the debt and never deleted. You wouldn't want to waste your time in sending PFDs to a CA that cannot accept it. A DV result also pinpoints the true and correct balance by which to send a PFD. Finally, info might come to light after sending a DV that could invalidate the debt and at the very least you want to review what the CA sends you and compare that to your records with the OC. But definitely, after they verify and you agree, then always send a PFD.
04-15-2012 07:19 AM
In just plain English, a consumer has no statutory right under either the FCRA or the FDCPA to simply send a letter to a creditor and require validation of a debt with them. Their account agreements spell out the terms of their obligation. Requests to validate a debt are reserved for debt collectors, to ensure that they have contacted the creditor and have been assured that the debt they are attempting to collect has been stated by the creditor to be legitimate, and that statement convey to the consumer.
Creditors are not subject to debt validation per se. However, they are subject to challenges of the accuracy of what they report to a CRA, and the process with a credtior is to dispute the accuracy of what they have reported under the FCRA, not to request/require debt validation. Yes, you challenge, but no, not by use of the DV process.
As for always sending a DV prior to beginning PFD negotiations, if you have a timely DV, then the debt collector is precluded from conducting any collection activities, including negotiations on a PFD offer. You cant impose a statutory cease collection bar on them, and then conduct negotiations with them prior to receipt of debt validation.
By doing so, you are asking them to violate their cease collection bar.