topic Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation in Rebuilding Your Credit

Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Chanduwar — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:21:05 GMT

Is an account statement valid form of Validation?

Global has got the account entry re-inserted into my CR's. All they have sent is an account statement as a validation.

Also Global is showing this account as an open account with 120+ late

What should I do?

Chanduwar

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:24:57 GMT

If they sent the name/address of the OC and/or a copy of the debt/judgment then it is likely proper validation.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:15:52 GMT

Depending on the debt, the source, the length of default and so on, the courts have been split on this when they have seen it (mind you most cases don't make it that far) and some have accepted it as valid but anecdotally most have seemed to reject the notion as being one sided and unfair. The belief is that using your own records as proof of getting your way seems a bit one sided and stacked and unless absolute and indisputable (such as a signed slip or a document bearing a signature), then its just your records and not proof. So its hard to say really.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

nothingman02 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:07:19 GMT

The account must be listed as a "closed" account under "collections". Not as open, or installment or such and certainly not under closed accounts revolving or otherwise. You have a violation there (FCRA and perhaps you could drag in FDCPA) and hope you've been documenting everything.

I believe most statements from OC and that includes your statement, qualify as validation. From the OC though mind you. Not some fun stuff fashioned by the CA over solitaire during luch break.

A proper validation really is just the name of the OC and amount of debt listed on the CAs letterhead with any pertinent document from the OC as an addendum.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:49:58 GMT

It depends on whether you are looking at state or federal law. It also depends on when you sent your DV request. If you sent your DV within 30 days of initial written notice, then NO, they must send you documenation from the OC. However, if you do not DV within 30 days from initial collection notice, then they may send you a statement as described.

HOWEVER: Many state laws do not have such 30 limits, like here in Texas. The CA is required, as is any CRA, to investigate the DV without limitation to 30 days.

In addition, some states require licensing, bonding or certification to operate within the state, like here in Texas they must be bonded.

In Texas, state law is much more consumer friendly than even the FDCPA. And FDCPA specifically states that if state statutes are more restrictive that those apply. In other words, federal law is a minimum the CA must abide by. State laws are additional and often more regulating on the CA than the FDCPA.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

nothingman02 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:08:33 GMT

Alright. So for one last time let me try get this straight. Again.

If a consumer responds to a dunning letter within the first 30 days,

- The CA has to respond with docs from the OC

If the consumer sends a DV too late or later,

- The CA does not have to produce docs from the OC and can simply prepare them in his office?

Also, if the consumer DVs the CA,

- Does the CA have 30 days to respond or,

- He can take as long as he wants but can not pursue collection activities

- If so, does reporting (not changing any information but simply continuing to report)

to the CRAs constitute collection activity?

Ive found too much conflicting information and hence want to get it right for the last time. Lets ignore licensing, bonding, sols, state laws and everything else. Sticking to the minimun which in our discussion is the FDCPA.

Message Edited by nothingman02 on 03-26-2009 01:08 PM

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:09:19 GMT

FDCPA - Section 809 should clear things up.

They have no time limit to respond, only must cease collection activities until they do.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:14:04 GMT

Federally speaking you are correct. Your state laws may provide additional time or protections.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:21:07 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
FDCPA - Section 809 should clear things up.

They have no time limit to respond, only must cease collection activities until they do.

Thank you and to add, txjohn, in the case of credit related issues, its a federal jurisdiction so they have to play ball in accordance with that. State rules are handy for certain things like collections being taken to court and it would come when the CA or OC are in the same jurisdiction as you, but if not, again federal rules trump state. So you are right in a sense but not not in all cases.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

nothingman02 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:18:00 GMT

Thats what I thought initially.

But then regarding the time period limitations, I saw a msg here by HappyDays.

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=rebuildingcredit&message.id=34578&query.id=161068#M34578

Could someone clarify the above?

txjohn

here is an excerpt from te FDCPA 809

(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

Id imagine that the 'verification' of the debt would have to be provided by the OC as obviously theres no other legitimate source to verify the debt. And hence whether the consumer has responded within the first 30 days or not, the CA has to provide verification or copy of the debt, from the OC and cant simply print one out off of his computer. That would be in my books - a violation.

I would think that the CA could on the other hand, refuse verification as the consumer did not respond within the first 30 days but they still cant fashion a fake verification.

Also I think a consumer could state that he never received the dunning letter from the CA too and state that his DV was his/her 's first contact with the CA. Or, A consumer could simply call the CA and question him about the listing and the CA would immediately obtain the consumers address and mail out a dunning letter which the consumer can use to send out his DV. Thats what Ive been doing atleast.

Regarding collection activities, the FDCPA states too that collection activities which do not directly conflict with the consumer's dispute, could continue during the dispute process. Reporting to the CRAs would be one of those I would imagine. What the CA can not do though, i'd think is call the consumer, or try to sue.

Basically,

Collection of debt should cease.

Collection activities need not.

Message Edited by nothingman02 on 03-26-2009 05:18 PM

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:11:56 GMT

For the most part, valid points. I just wanted to add that the requirement to stop collection efforts refers to, sending you demand letters, calling you at home or work, and stuff like that, its mostly a matter of semantics, since they are entitled to contact you if its regarding the dispute or debt validation.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:58:18 GMT

Hi Guardian -

Not arguing here just sharing the info.....Federal does not trump state. I currently have an attorney working for me and my wife who specializes in credit FCRA/FDCPA, etc.

FDCPA specifically states within in that if state statutes or laws provide additional or more stringent provisions than those of the federal, the state rules apply.

Unless there is a conflict of law, such as constitutional, state laws are the primary jurisdiction of the consumer. Federal statutes and protections are in addition to to state law, no in replacement.

I thnk we sometimes forget that those "powers not specifically delegated" to the federal government remain with the states (US Constitution).

While credit issues do fall under interstate commerce (FTC) and other jurisdictions, this does not remove the state jurisdictions of the consumer, they are in addition to.

Most CA's and CRA's only speak of the federal provisions and requirments, and some states have laws that really just "point to" the federal law and say, "yeah, what they said" but in Texas and many states, they have very specific laws that go far beyond the minimums of federal.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:28:43 GMT

txjohn, you are right I won't argue about it, to each their own. You are right that rights not guaranteed by the contitution falls under the state and if states have more stringent laws they are welcome to use it. However, those powers end at the state border and if you are in state x and creditor is in state y, guess what? your state laws mean nothing since its interstate commerce at that point subject to the rules of the federal government. But heck, what do I know, I only play a lawyer who teaches constitutional law and civil procedure. I could be wrong and your attorney charging you money and motivated to tell you what you want to hear is probably right.

Message Edited by Guardian on 03-27-2009 11:28 AM

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:39:59 GMT

....the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period ....

Federally speaking, when a CA notifies you initially by writing, they must provide you notice of your right to request validation WITHIN 30 DAYS of their notice. If you do not dispute or request within 30 days, they MAY ASSUME THE DEBT IS VALID. At that point, they are only obligated to provide you the name of the OC and information provided by the OC, but not validate with the OC after 30 days.

However, state laws may have more restriction on the CA than this, such as is the case in Texas, which requires the CA to verify or validate even after 30 days, plus such things as be licensed, bonded or certified in the state.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:48:12 GMT

Guardian,

I hope that I have not offended you...and I believe that i may have poorly communicated the true point I was making. The point to which I was referring is that if XYZ Company does busines in another state and with citizens of that state, they are subject to the consumer laws of that state and the protections it provides.

In no way was I attempting to say that federal rules do not apply, and I apologize if I seemed to infer that or suggest that you were wrong. I was so to speak, splitting a specific hair. Which is that I have had much better success using Texas consumer protection laws with CA's than federal laws. It provided use of state and county courts and state laws which were a bit more consumer friendly than even the federal.

I absolutely agree that interstate commerce and trade is regulated at the federal law. I was only trying to get a little more granular on the state level leverages that may be had when dealing with CA's.

In any regard, please accept my apology for any offense or statement which was or appeared to be objectionable.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:19:44 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Guardian,

I hope that I have not offended you...and I believe that i may have poorly communicated the true point I was making. The point to which I was referring is that if XYZ Company does busines in another state and with citizens of that state, they are subject to the consumer laws of that state and the protections it provides.

In no way was I attempting to say that federal rules do not apply, and I apologize if I seemed to infer that or suggest that you were wrong. I was so to speak, splitting a specific hair. Which is that I have had much better success using Texas consumer protection laws with CA's than federal laws. It provided use of state and county courts and state laws which were a bit more consumer friendly than even the federal.

I absolutely agree that interstate commerce and trade is regulated at the federal law. I was only trying to get a little more granular on the state level leverages that may be had when dealing with CA's.

In any regard, please accept my apology for any offense or statement which was or appeared to be objectionable.

Of course not my friend, we are all adults. Discussion is part of life, no need to be offended. I just get busy sometimes and don't get to come back and reply right away and when I do I have to write it quickly and sometimes I leave the formalities out.

I understood what you said and I agreed with you actually, remember I was just setting the scope of it in perspective for you because I didn't want you to god forbid find yourself in a situation where that distinction would get you in trouble. Otherwise, you made your point fine and I accept it to a certain degree. As I said jurisdiction is a really trickly little fella and you have to be very careful with it, that's all. In many cases, states have ultimate power and in fact federal will release back to state to decide an issue but there are times that even a state matter is involved, federal court will hear it for the sake of impartiality and efficiency when there are some components that fall under their jurisdiction and depending on where you stand, its a good or bad thing that they have the power to snatch cases if they want. However, they are also bound by much stricter jurisdiction requirments, so they often don't flex that muscle. In fact they prefer NOT to set a national presedence and prefer to keep it localized, unless the issue warrants it.

Anyway we are all cool, I wasn't offended and no apology needed. I am sorry if I made you feel that way, it was not my intention.

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:37:19 GMT

Glad to hear we are cool

As an after thought, I could have avoided much of the fuzzy area with this disclaimer:

"My comments are related to dealing with Collection Agencies only, and not to the general overview of interstate commerce and federal powers."

Re: Is an account statement valid form of Validation

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:53:34 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Glad to hear we are cool

As an after thought, I could have avoided much of the fuzzy area with this disclaimer:

"My comments are related to dealing with Collection Agencies only, and not to the general overview of interstate commerce and federal powers."

Always. Come on, we are adults here, at least I think we are with some people you never know. Its ok with your disclaimer, I could have waded through the fuzz if I was not in a rush but no harm no foul. I have for a while now tried to adopt hauling's laid back approach on differences. Say your peace, be respectful and just leave it at that, you can't convince everyone and all you can do is say what you know and leave it to that person to decide for themself. So I figure it avoids the need to be offended or become "less than friends" with anyone. The worst case scenario, you just don't reply or talk to that person or comment on their posts, you know? Passive agressive if you will I will be completely honest and tell you that there are a couple of people whose posts I avoid like the plague and commend the ones with the patience to deal with them. Otherwise I am friends with everyone until I am not or they are not.