Fair Collections & Outsourcing - Potential way to fight collection

[Anonymous]

As anyone who's ever dealt with Fair Collections & Outsourcing (FCO) knows, they're notoriously unmoving when it comes to settelements and pay for delete.  I have a 6 year old collection account with them from an apartment that I rented until February of 2012.  Because I was ONE DAY late in submitting a letter that I was planning to move out at the end of the lease, they hit me with a penatly of three months rent and other sundry fees, for a total of $3339.  I've pretty much ignored it since, but I'm planning on buying a house soon, so I wanted to see if I could get this one negative mark off my credit.

I recently received an offer for settlement of 50%.  I used that as an excuse to contact them for validation, to which they responded with a signed lease agreement and a complete breakdown of fees, so kudos to them for being on top of things.  But the signed lease agreement is where I think I may have a way out.  My original lease was for 13 months, from 11/1/10 to 11/30/11, and it states that "Unless renewed, this lease ends on 11/30/11".  This is the signed lease that FCO sent me.  However, at the end of that lease, we signed a new lease for an additional three months, putting our new lease end date at 2/28/12.  This three month lease document is not included in FCO's validation.  So, my argument is that since the signed lease that FCO sent me wasn't in force when I moved out, it's not acceptable as validation.  They need to have the three month lease document stating what the charges and penalties are in order to enforce the debt.

Any thoughts before I pull the trigger and settle for half?

[RobertEG]

Debt validation is a debt collection practices procedure that imposes a cease collection bar upon a debt collector if you file a timely request for debt validation.  It does not impose any period for or any requirement to send validation.

Was your DV request even timely?   If not, it imposes no restrictions upon the debt collector, and any response is totally voluntary.

Additionally, FDCPA 809(b) does not specifically require any documentation to support validation, and relevant case law generally holds that validation does not require proofs or supporting documentation.  

Regardless of whether of not their response is adequate validation (which, in my opinion, it is), if you assert that it is not, you are only legally asserting that they remain under a cease collection bar (assuming your DV request was in writing and timely). 

Stated differently, if you assert lack of adequate validation, that is not per se any violation on their part, and not basis for any removal of their collection.  It is simply your assertion that the debt remains unvalidated, and thus any cease collection bar would remain in effect.

I dont see how the assertion of lack of adequate validation is a potential way to "fight the collection" other than to possibly serve as legal basis for suing if they begin collection activies without first providing validation.

I would recommend pursuing a good-will deletion by the debt collector, either by way of a PFD offer prior to paying, or by paying and then pursuing a GW request after payment.  Contesting their response to your DV will likely burn a good-will bridge, and may be counter-productive.

[Kree]

---

@Anonymouswrote:

As anyone who's ever dealt with Fair Collections & Outsourcing (FCO) knows, they're notoriously unmoving when it comes to settelements and pay for delete.  I have a 6 year old collection account with them from an apartment that I rented until February of 2012.  Because I was ONE DAY late in submitting a letter that I was planning to move out at the end of the lease, they hit me with a penatly of three months rent and other sundry fees, for a total of $3339.  I've pretty much ignored it since, but I'm planning on buying a house soon, so I wanted to see if I could get this one negative mark off my credit.

I recently received an offer for settlement of 50%.  I used that as an excuse to contact them for validation, to which they responded with a signed lease agreement and a complete breakdown of fees, so kudos to them for being on top of things.  But the signed lease agreement is where I think I may have a way out.  My original lease was for 13 months, from 11/1/10 to 11/30/11, and it states that "Unless renewed, this lease ends on 11/30/11".  This is the signed lease that FCO sent me.  However, at the end of that lease, we signed a new lease for an additional three months, putting our new lease end date at 2/28/12.  This three month lease document is not included in FCO's validation.  So, my argument is that since the signed lease that FCO sent me wasn't in force when I moved out, it's not acceptable as validation.  They need to have the three month lease document stating what the charges and penalties are in order to enforce the debt.

Any thoughts before I pull the trigger and settle for half?

---

Double check with the apartment owners to see when it was rerented.  They cannot charge you three months rent and then rent it to someone else within those 3 months.  i've had a 3600 dollar bill reduced to 120 because the apartment was rerented 3 days after I moved out.

Also, a bit late now, but at the time of moveout you can also have a portion or all of a bill invalidated if the owners do not relist the apartment for rent.  Not sure how you could look that up at this date and time. (which is why SOLs are usually 7 years or less, evidence is hard to get/prove after half a decade.) Additionally if the new rent is X amount higher than your payment, or X more than median rent (both depend upon local laws) you can often claim that the apartment owners were negligent in their efforts to rerent the apartment, and you do not owe for the unrented period.  (would have been more useful advice 6 years ago.

If the original apartment owners do not have records of when the apartment was next rented, you should be able to get the accounts removed from your report, as they cannot provide evidence what portion (if any) you owe.  I assume this would involve a dispute, and if the debt is validated, a civil lawsuit.  Not sure about the details, I've never had to sue anyone.

 EDIT: On a reread, it might be out of SOL to sue the apartment for fraudulant debts selling.  If thats even a legal term.  But there must be some sort of knowingly reporting erroneous information to the CRA, if you provide evidence that they don't have validity to report.