Requirements for Debt Validation

[Anonymous]

Hello,

I was recently put in collections for the amount exceeding our security deposit from our previous apartment property management company. I am trying to dispute the amount with the property management company and there is definely a duplicate charge, but I am not getting a response.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the charges are all legit. What is minimum requirement from the debt collector to provide debt validation? They responded to my debt validation request, but they only provided a itemized statement with the name of the apartment (no address listed). The name of the apartment is not the name of the property management company, which is the company that initiated the request. In fact, I found out the property management company no longer owns the apartment complex (sold to a new company 2 days after we moved out). Is what they provided adequate?

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the forums.

All a debt collector has to provide is the name of the current collector, the amount and if you ask for the name and address of the OC.  You can also ask for an itemization of the debt.

Unless you specifically asked for the OC address then what they have sent you is considered proper validation.

The total amount could include fees and interest from the debt collector which is allowed if your state and the original agreement allows it.

[RobertEG]

What is or is not adequate debt vailidation is a topic that has been the subject of endless legal actions.

FDCPA 809(b) requires only that the debt collector obtain verification, and pass that finding on to the consumer.

It does not list specifics of adequate/inadequate validation.

When a statute is subject to interpretation, the courts give their interpretation as to its meaning.

Based on congressional intent when enacting the DV process, which was to weed out spurious collectors, the courts have overwheilminly held that adequate verification requires only that the debt collector investigate and pass on a finding that they have obtained adequate basis for determination that the debt is valid.

That having been said, you will find some decisions where the court has required more, such as documentation.  Unless affirmed on an appellate level, those decsions are not binding precedent, even on other courts within the same jurisdiction, and are not the normal standard for verification.

Bottom line is that adequate debt validation is what the judge handling the trial interprets it to be.

You can always choose to litigate if you assert that more than a finding is required, and hope to get before a judge that concurs with your interpretation.

Howver, you are unlikely to have binding legal precedent in your jurisdiction to argue in support of such a position.

As an aside, in my humle opinion, requiring supporting documentation makes little sense under the administratie DV process.

Were a debt collector to provide any documentation, it would almost assuredly be contested by the consumer, either as to completeness or adequate to support their finding.  The DV process simply has no administrative law judges to require both sides to produce all documenttion, or to rule on the inevitable assertions of what may be procuced does nor does not "prove."  Ergo, a requirement to produce documentation would not lead to a resolution.

That is up to the courts.  Get your interpretation before a judge, and hope for their concurrence, or accept their statement that they have basis.