Orignal Creditor Validate?

[DR527]

Verizon sent me back a letter yesterday, that I'm just getting being able to read today. Saying that as the original creditor. They don't have to validate debt "at the request of the customer?" This seem completely odd. In order for a account to be charged off doesn't it have to be sold? And even if its sold doesn't the FAIR ACT protection consumer rights to due process? Everything on your report has to be verified right? 

[FireMedic1]

Verizon has a collections department that handles past due accounts before they release them to an official collection agency. They dont want to lose $ if they sell it to a CA. So they do their best to get paid before that happens.

[gdale6]

---

@DR527 wrote:

Verizon sent me back a letter yesterday, that I'm just getting being able to read today. Saying that as the original creditor. They don't have to validate debt "at the request of the customer?" Debt Validation is for collection agencies only, the OC doesnt validate, they can send you a copy of the bill at your request then you can dispute its validity with them.

This seem completely odd. In order for a account to be charged off doesn't it have to be sold? No such requirement anything be sold to be COed, it can be reported as such as soon as the OC writes it off its just an accounting maneuver.

And even if its sold doesn't the FAIR ACT protection consumer rights to due process? Everything on your report has to be verified right?  If you are referring to the FCRA then all info reported must be accurate, it means accurate in their eyes and its up to you to challenge anything you believe inaccurate with fact based evidence

---

[RobertEG]

Original creditors have an established contract with the consumer that includes provisions for billing statements.

Your contract, terms, and billing statements constitute their statement of what they consider your current debt.

That is their "verification," and thus there are no provisions of law that simply permit you to send a general request that they verify.

If you contest a specific billing, then provisions of the various statutes permit you to dispute the accuracy, such as disputes under the Fair Credit Billing Act, but general request for debt verification from a creditor is not separately required, as it would simply be duplicative of what they have already provided under your accunt agreement and billing statements.

You dont have any contract agreement with debt collectors, so the FDCPA establishes a separate debt validation process that permits a consumer to request that a debt collector invesigate an asserted debt either via records obtained from the creditor, or by contacting the creditor for their statement of verification.

As for charge-offs, no, it is not necessary that a debt be sold before it is charged-off.  In fact, if a creditor has sold a debt,they no longer own it, and thus cannot take a charge-off of the receivable asset that they dont own.

A charge-off is only an internal accounting measure that moves a delinquent debt over from a receivable asset to an accounting column that is not included in their statement of net assets.  Its purpose is to prevent creditors from overstating their net assets by including amounts that are not likely to ever be paid.

After taking a charge-off, the debt is still fully due by the consumer, and the creditor can continue to attempt its collection the same as any other debt, or sell the debt to another party.

[DR527]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Original creditors have an established contract with the consumer that includes provisions for billing statements.

Your contract, terms, and billing statements constitute their statement of what they consider your current debt.

That is their "verification," and thus there are no provisions of law that simply permit you to send a general request that they verify.

If you contest a specific billing, then provisions of the various statutes permit you to dispute the accuracy, such as disputes under the Fair Credit Billing Act, but general request for debt verification from a creditor is not separately required, as it would simply be duplicative of what they have already provided under your account agreement and billing statements. This is the part that I don't understand. How do they do both? How is it possible they can say yes, we have reviewed our own account accuracy. And also not be with holding of cumsumer protection laws to report accurate information. Like hypothetically, if Verizon or any Creditor called me up to say that a account was sent to CO. And that I owned money on it. And I say no I paid you guys for that account. And I have proof of payment from my bank. The creditors terms and bylaws shouldn't outweigh the Rights to The Comsumer. Which doubles back to "Verifaction or Validation" of said account. How can a company make guildlines that move outside of the Fair Credit Billing Act. 

You dont have any contract agreement with debt collectors, so the FDCPA establishes a separate debt validation process that permits a consumer to request that a debt collector invesigate an asserted debt either via records obtained from the creditor, or by contacting the creditor for their statement of verification. 

As for charge-offs, no, it is not necessary that a debt be sold before it is charged-off.  In fact, if a creditor has sold a debt,they no longer own it, and thus cannot take a charge-off of the receivable asset that they dont own.

A charge-off is only an internal accounting measure that moves a delinquent debt over from a receivable asset to an accounting column that is not included in their statement of net assets.  Its purpose is to prevent creditors from overstating their net assets by including amounts that are not likely to ever be paid.

After taking a charge-off, the debt is still fully due by the consumer, and the creditor can continue to attempt its collection the same as any other debt, or sell the debt to another party. 

---