cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Verification vs Validation

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

Verification vs Validation

I received a letter in September from Niagara Credit Services Inc stating that I owed $11K from a debt to HSBC and they were attempting to collect for their Client and the Account Owner  Main Street Acquisition.  I responded within 30 days requesting a validation of the debt.  I did not receive a response from Niagara but I did receive a letter this week from Main Street Acquisition. Main Street says they are  providing a response to my correspondence referencing  an HSBC debt of $5801  with last payment 7/2008 and charged off by HSBC March 2009.  The letter also states Main Street Acquisition Corp is the current owner of the account with $8766 owed and their office is in Suwanee, GA.

 

In their letter, Main Street provided an Account Verification Statement.  They included the following paragraph:

 

 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 the alleged debt.  Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to eliminate the ..problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid...There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 395, 406 (4th Cir. 1998).

 

 

I asked for validation nor verification and I still do not believe this is my debt.  Any suggestions for next steps?

 

 

 

Message 1 of 2
1 REPLY 1
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Verification vs Validation

That is pure and simply self-serving hogwash.  They would be wise to avoid statements of lack of need to have substantive basis for their debt validations.

It is not universal in the case law, and could be viewed as deceptive on their part to lead you to believe they dont have substantive validation requirments.

 

While a debt collector is not required under the explicit language of the FDCPA to provide you their supporting documenation upon which they based their verification of the accuracy of the debt, that does not equate to their ability to verify without supporting documentation.  A debt collector is required to have in their files or obtan from the creditor sufficient documentation to support a finding that the debt is accurate, and that you are the responsible party.

 

Federal appellate jurisdictions vary on whether or not a debt collector is required to provide any supporting documentation.  While some jurisdictions, such as the selective decision cited by your legal jockey, may indicate no need to provide documentation under FDCPA 809(b), that is not univerally the case law in all federal appellate jurisdictions.  So stating borders on the deceptive and is not, in my opinion, appropriate in a DV response.

 

Additiionally, state debt collecction statutes and regs may also come into play.

It is becoming increasingly common for states to compel more than is required under the FDCPA debt validation section.

You may have additonal requirements if you are a resident of a state that has more restrictive statutes or regs, such as TX, NY, CA or MA.

 

You may wish to check out your state debt collection practices statutes and regs for any such additional requirements.

Message 2 of 2
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.