Verizon "validation" letter with no substantiation and no acknowledgement.

[Anonymous]

I requested Verizon review a debt it has reported for seven years as collection account $288 and provide billing statements to support the balance.  I had sent them proof of canceling service and returning equipment most recently in January 2014 when they also coerced a settlement payment toward that disputed debt of $57.  They have never provided bill detail to support the debt level.  

They replied by sending an apparent form letter validating a debt of $57 and two billing statements, the last balance on which was $127.

The letter did not mention this was a correction to the previous reported level (reported incorrectly for 7 years).

I had to laugh that the letter was debt validation with no substantiation, no link between balance claimed owed and balance on statement sent.

1.  Is this typical to validate without substantiation.

2.  Want to send another letter asking for substantiation, but having trouble writing out what I mean.  What I mean is how did they calculate the amount they had been dunning me for ($288), how they got there from the $127 show on the billing statement, then how did they calculate the $57, and how did they get from $288 to $57).  I need to see detail by date to ensure they are not charging for access etc after I canceled account and equipment.

3.  Verizon balks at "opening" up an account which they considered settled.  I settled because they gave me no choice, holding services on my other, longer standing account hostage to payment on the debt even though it was in dispute.  I think what they validated is merely the amount I paid in settlement.

Thoughts?  Words?  Strategies?

Thank you

[RobertEG]

What is or is not adequate debt validation is probably the most subjective issues in debt collection.

The federal DV process, as set forth in FDCPA 809, does not define what comprises adequate validation.

That issue is left to the courts to determine, and the case law varies by jurisdiciton.

The most common interpretation is that documentation is not required.  The debt collector is required to conduct an investigation, and provide a statement supported by that investigation.  It is then left to the courts to interpret the adequacy of their investigation and verificaiton.

Many states have implemented their own, more comprehensive, debt collection statutes, which do place specific documentation requirements on DV requests.

Thus, it is often preferable to make a DV request under the provisions of your state DV statute or regs rather than the federal FDCPA.

As a final issue, lack of what is considered adequate violation is never, per se, a violation of the FDCPA.

The FDCPA sets no time period for providing validation.  If your DV was timely and their response is not considered adequate, there is no violation unless or until the debt collector then resumes collection activities without having first provided what you consider adequate validation.  The violation is then of their cease collection bar under FDCPA 809(b), not the lack of validation per se.

What is your current state of residence?

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your reply.

I live in California, now and always.

How can I be assured the charges are correct without date and line item specifics?

[RobertEG]

California has an enhanced debt collection practices act that only applies to debt purchased by debt collectors, and where the debts were purchased after Jan 1, 2014.

The CA Fair Debt Buying Preactices Act does not require full itemization of the asserted debt, but does require a breakdown of additonal amounts, including interest or other collection fees.

If the OC still owns the debt, or if the debt was not sold until after Jan 1, 2014, then unfortunately the new CA provisions would not apply to your colleciton.

If they have provided billing statemtns and a statement verifying the debt, they appear to have complied with the debt validation requirments of the FDCPA.

[Anonymous]

I was wondering this myself. A collection agency contacted me last week about a medical debt from 2012. Apparently the doctors office and the CA had an old address and all mail was returned to them. They are saying I owe $1200. I requested proof of this debt and what it is because I had insurance.

I just got a letter yesterday showing nothing but a single date with three principal amounts and then the interest charge on each. There's no description of service or inkling **bleep** each one is.

I'm going to need to send another request for proof of this debt but I'm holding off until my mortgage closes. I doubt this is even valid in the sense that it's likely just a billing error. Very frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your reply and for applying your expertise carefully.  

I understand how this may be insufficient under law, but insufficient to me as the one bearing the burden of the debt.  As I stated, the amount so verified is different than the billing statement provided and different from the debt they have been reporting and trying to collect for seven years.  I am inclined to continue disputing the amount in hopes of getting an explanation.  Fortunately, the derog should fall off my reports this month.  Unfortunate they didn't respond to my dispute in 2010.  More unfortunate there is no private cause of action as a result of furnisher inaccuracy and failure to investigate.   

Given your expertise, may I extend your patience, to ask about settlements of collection accounts.  I thought I had read that California enacted a new law taking affect in 1/2014 that when taking or making a settlement offer for less than the full amount of debt, that the creditor must provide a statement showing the revised debt balance.  Now, however, I can't find that reference, nor find it in the government code.  Is there such a

provision that you know of?  Code section?

PS Interesting to have found where settlements after SOL can be a private cause as a violation of debt collection practices (California Rosenthal Act, don't remember federal ref) statutes but SOL on the violations is just one year.  

[RobertEG]

That is also a provision of the new  California Fair Debt Buying Pratices Act, which include the settlement provisions cited below.

However, it only applies to debt buyers, not creditors or debt collectors who do not own the debt or who purchased the debt prior to the effective date of 01/2014.

“(b) A debt buyer that receives payment on a debt shall provide, within 30 calendar days, a receipt or monthly statement, to the debtor. The receipt or statement shall clearly and conspicuously show the amount and date paid, the name of the entity paid, the current account number, the name of the charge-off creditor, the account number issued by the charge-off creditor, and the remaining balance owing, if any. The receipt or statement may be provided electronically if the parties agree.

(c) A debt buyer that accepts a payment as payment in full, or as a full and final compromise of the debt, shall provide, within 30 calendar days, a final statement that complies with subdivision (b). A debt buyer shall not sell an interest in a resolved debt, or any personal or financial information related to the resolved debt.”