What is proper debt validation

[toa700]

Hello All, 

This is the Debt Validation I got from Portfolio Recovery associates for a cell phone:

Account number XXXXXXXand itrs proceeds were sold, assigned and transferred by the seller to Portfolio recovery associates, on 03/20/08. At the time of the sale, the seller provided an electronic file of its businnes records concerning this account. According to the sellers records there was a balance due and payable from XXXXX to the seller in the sum of $155.54 with respect to the account, as of 03/20/2008, there being known un-credited payments, just counterclaims, or offsets against this account at the date of its sale.

Is this proper DV? 

[SanFranMatt]

I received the same letter from them.  Although it's very barebones, I think it's all they have to legally provide.  I don't think you can sue them or get this removed simply because they didn't provide enough information.

As the dollar amount is small, I'd recommend sending a PFD letter and hoping for the best.

[llecs]

I read the FDCPA literally, in that it states the CA must provide the OC name, contact info, and the balance due. If it doesn't have all of that, then IMO, it is not valid. Some states may require more info if asked though.

If you feel they didn't provide the above, then I'd send a second.

[RobertEG]

In addition to providing the amount of the debt, and name of the creditor to which it is owed, section 809((a)(4) also requires verfication of the debt, if the consumer stated in the DV letter that the debt, or any portion thereof is disputed.

Various case law decisions and FTC advisory letters require that verification must, at a minimum be based on contact back through the OC, hopefully by providing a copy of the consumer account agreement with the OC, or at the lminimum, copies of at least one billing statement from the OC esablishing the existence of the account.  The section requires mailing a copy of their verification to the consumer.  Thus, it is not enough for them to simply state that their (the CAs) records contain verification without providing a copy to you.

[upinflagstaff]

I don't consider that proper validation. I had the same thing with PRA, but mine is out of SOL, CRTP, etc. They also sent me a letter after a couple of weeks:

Re: Dispute Investigation
PRA Account/Reference No: ###

In our previous letter to you, we requested that you send our company additional information pertaining to the account referenced above so that the Disputes Department could complete the investigation of the alleged dispute.

To date, we have not received this information and cannot complete the investigation.

Since we have not received this information, we are terminating the disputes investigation pertaining to this account and our company will no longer treat this account as a disputed account.

The account is being returned to the collection floor and our representatives will be instructed to pursue the outstanding balance due on this account."

That made me mad...

There is a standard follow up DV that I modified to start out:

Re: ###
Dear Sir/Madam:
I'm sure you know, under FDCPA Section 809 (b), you are not allowed to pursue collection activity until the debt is validated. You should be made aware that in TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity.

You received a request for validation from me on 08/16/08. You have not adequately responded to that request, only providing me with a date that your company purchased the alleged debt and a current balance amount. Subsequently you mailed me a letter dated 09/18/08 which includes the following passage, “In our previous letter to you, we requested that you send our company additional information pertaining to the account referenced above so that the Disputes Department could complete the investigation of the alleged dispute.” Under FDCPA it is Portfolio Recovery Associates who is required to investigate and validate an alleged debt. Further as you did not request that I provide additional information to prove your right to collect this alleged debt in that previous letter, this statement is a violation of FDCPA § 807.

Of course if yours is still within SOL, you might want to consider whether you can PIF if they begin litigation... again IMO I don't think this meets the standards of validation and I don't think they can collect until it is properly validated - per my humble reading of FDCPA and FCRA. 

[RobertEG]

You are absolutely correct.  The FDCPA validation process is the burden of the CA, and not the consumer. 

Their communcation of a dunning letter to you is their statement that they have authority from the OC to act in collection of the debt.  Thus, they HAVE to know sufficient details of the debt to enable them to validate.  I would not send them anything else other than notice that their response to your DV letter is not in compliance with the FDCPA, and thus all collection activity by them must be suspended from the time of your first DV letter until such time as full compliance it communicated to you.  Their threat to resume collection activity is a blatant harassment that is barred under the FDCPA.

Your response is perfect!

[toa700]

Thank you all for your help. How can I find out if this account is within SOL?

[upinflagstaff]

You state that it's for a cell phone. The federal SOL on cell phones for collections is two years. You need to know the DOFD and DOLA to determine if it's within SOL.

[guiness56]

More specifically, if it falls under US Code 47, Chap 5 (telephone, cellphone, cable and satellite), all collection activity must begin before the 2 years has expired.

[SanFranMatt]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

More specifically, if it falls under US Code 47, Chap 5 (telephone, cellphone, cable and satellite), all collection activity must begin before the 2 years has expired.

---

I've seen this before but haven't been able to get confirmation that it's correct.  I just received a collection in September for an AT&T landline.  After sending a DV letter, they sent me old statements from early 2006.  Since they didn't start collection within 2 years, it seems like they must delete but I can't find a good source to send to the CA.

Regarding PRA, I also received that second form letter requesting information from me.  This is after I disputed the account.  I have a feeling it'll take a while to get this off of my report.