Is an account statement valid form of Validation

[Chanduwar]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[nothingman02]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[nothingman02]

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

[Anonymous]

FDCPA  -  Section 809 should clear things up.

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

---

@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.

[nothingman02]

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