? regarding debt validation

[cp94550]

At the beginning of November I sent a letter to a CA, CMRRR, along the lines of "I recently pulled mt credit report and you are reporting a debt. Please validate". I received a response within a weeks time with a fairly long letter that seems like their generic response citing a popular court case and how they do not have to provide a signed contract or statements and stating that I allege they never notified me. They also gave me my name, address, OC's name & address and the total of my bill.

The OC is AT&T and I have had phone service with them in the past, however on my credit report it shows a $400-ish balance, and the CA is claiming closer to $1,000.

I sent them a letter back, also CMRRR, stating that I am requesting further validation of this debt in the form of a signed contract, an agreement between AT&T and the CA stating they can collect, and full records of payments and charges itemizing any additional fees and interest that has accrued.

Afew more days go by and I get their response.... THE EXACT SAME LETTER FROM BEFORE. They did not even address my questions or try to provide me with a statement, etc.

I'm wondering if I should send in all correspondence to CRA's asking them to remove since the CA could not provide sufficient validation or is this all they need to provide?

A little history- I'm in California, alleged debt is from 2005, due to drop off in October 2012, owing a debt to AT&T could be possible since I had them in the past for cell service but the $ amount seems excessive (that's why I'm attempting DV).

[casmith1980]

sorry I am unable to answer all of your post, but as far as the $1,000 amount - it's very likely that the CA added all kinds of fees and such to this account when they purchased it.  That's why they can send out those letters that say "settle your debt for 50% less!!" and still make money.  They purchase the debts for pennies on the dollar and really stick it to the debtor.

Others will chime in shortly with more knowledge of your situation.

[MarineVietVet]

---

@cp94550 wrote:
At the beginning of November I sent a letter to a CA, CMRRR, along the lines of "I recently pulled mt credit report and you are reporting a debt. Please validate". I received a response within a weeks time with a fairly long letter that seems like their generic response citing a popular court case and how they do not have to provide a signed contract or statements and stating that I allege they never notified me. They also gave me my name, address, OC's name & address and the total of my bill.

The OC is AT&T and I have had phone service with them in the past, however on my credit report it shows a $400-ish balance, and the CA is claiming closer to $1,000.

I sent them a letter back, also CMRRR, stating that I am requesting further validation of this debt in the form of a signed contract, an agreement between AT&T and the CA stating they can collect, and full records of payments and charges itemizing any additional fees and interest that has accrued.

Afew more days go by and I get their response.... THE EXACT SAME LETTER FROM BEFORE. They did not even address my questions or try to provide me with a statement, etc.

I'm wondering if I should send in all correspondence to CRA's asking them to remove since the CA could not provide sufficient validation or is this all they need to provide?

A little history- I'm in California, alleged debt is from 2005, due to drop off in October 2012, owing a debt to AT&T could be possible since I had them in the past for cell service but the $ amount seems excessive (that's why I'm attempting DV).

---

What the CA sent you is all that is required by law. They don't have to provide any signed documents, records of payments, etc. Here is the full text 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.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

[cp94550]

That was kind of what I thought . I have read through that information a few times. I guess what doesn't seem to make sense is that they don't have to provide me with any type of information about how they got that balance. I have even called AT&T to get any information about this debt and they can't even find me - they tried name, address, social, home phone #, old cell phone #'s..... Nothing. That's why I'm a little doubtful about why the CA is showing.

[RobertEG]

Yes, under the prevailing case law in most jurisdictions,, they have provided adequate debt validation.  If they have checked with the creditor and obtained their assurance that the debt is valid, and have provided you with the current amount of the debt upon which they are collecting, that is validation.  Documentation is not required under the prevailing case law in most jurisdictions.

However, suppose for a minute that you do not consider their validation to be  adequate.  Is that an FDCPA violation?  No.

In that event, it is the same as having not responded at all.

Unless you live in Texas, a debt collector has no requirement to provide debt validation within any set period of time.  The "penalty" for not having provided adequate debt validation is that they must cease active collection activities until such time as they do provide the requested validation.  Failure to provide adequate validation is not a violation of the FDCPA, the continuance of collection activity without validation is the resulting violation.  And debt validation is a debt collection practices issue between you and the debt collector.  The CRAs have no part in that process.  Failure to provide debt validation is not the same as failure to provide validation of the accuracy of credit reporting that has been disputed under the FCRA.