I have multiple Collections Agencies who are only sending verification of the debt, not validation - I've asked them to do this twice - what do I do next? All they're sending is the credit card statements, no proof that I signed to be liable and all the other things I asked for. These are for Citibank credit cards, who have sold the debts. The CAs are the big ones who are known for being difficult. Do they *have to* do validation?
They have no obligation to validate anything. The only thing they're required to do is send a dunning notice after taking ownership which allows you to contest it within the first 30 days. And, they're only required to attempt it, so they could have sent it to an address you haven't lived at for 10 years, as long as it's an address you've lived at. You would have to prove that it was never sent out.
I have multiple Collections Agencies who are only sending verification of the debt, not validation - I've asked them to do this twice - what do I do next? All they're sending is the credit card statements, no proof that I signed to be liable and all the other things I asked for. These are for Citibank credit cards, who have sold th9e debts. The CAs are the big ones who are known for being difficult. Do they *have to* do validation?
The courts do not differentiate between validation and verification. Unless your court has ruled that a signature is required to validate, then it is not. The purpose of validation is to make sure the correct person has been dunned and that the amount claimed is what the creditor claims is owed. In most cases, a credit card statement that shows your name, address, and the same balance that is being claimed is enough to validate a debt.
Your mileage will vary to some extent on the answers you might get, but the posters above me have it correct IMO. They are not required to send you anything with your signature on it. Especially in the electronic age, where most credit card apps are done online, there is no wet ink signature.
The thing is, the standard for validation is so dang low you couldn't even trip over it. You mentioned that they sent you a couple of credit card statements. That's fairly common. It does not provide proof of much, to be honest, but thats why I said the standard is so low.
The contributors above hit the nail on the head. There isn't a requirement to DV, but it is a great delay tactic to give you time to work with the OC or try to secure a PFD (Pay For Delete) or DBR (Delete Before Reporting) with the CA. But once reported if you know the debt is valid you should attempt to reach a PFD agreement, or resolve the balance as it will continue to affect your score unless there is a fraud or dispute in reference to the balance which then I would advise you reach out to an executive at the credit card company so that they can assist. I do not believe in disputing debts just to dispute them.
Once you have sent a timely DV request (i.e., sent within 30-days after their dunning notice), the requirement under FDCPA 809 is that they cease collection activities until such time as they choose to send validation. There is no requirement to send anything, or even to respond, within any period.
As stated above, "validation" has been held by most courts to only require an investigation and statement that the debt has been found to be valid. No proofs are normally required.
Unless you live in a jurisdiction with precedential case law holding that supporting proofs are required, or unless your particular state has enacted enhanced validation/verification requirements that do mandate supporting documentation, they are not required to provide such documentation.
An assertion by a consumer that a DV response is incomplete is not an asserted violation per se of the FDCPA. It is merely an ssertion that the debt collector remains under a cease collection bar. Thus, there is no violation until the the debt collector resumes collection activities without having first sent validation.