I am not sure. Do you ever go on the debtcc forums? They have a lot of information about it on that site. I always thought that a company had to provide proof that the debt belonged to you and that the you, the debtor owed them. There is probably a much clearer explanation.
I have heard, now this is just hearsay, that they must prove that you have a contract with them as you do with the original creditor, if not, then it is no good. However, if there is something in the original agreement with the original creditor that they can sell it off and those collectors can collect it lawfully, then the collection agency must produce that contract between the collection agency and the original creditor that the contract was actually transferred to them for a collection account.
When these collection agency purchases these dead accounts they often buy them in bulk, with little or no paper work in hopes that the everyday consumer will just pay what they are requesting and they make their profit.
Now, this is only what I have learned through my ordeal of dealing with the collection agencies is that they usually don't have anything to back their claim, I do not owe the debt to them, I had no contract with them, they purchase these accounts for pennies on the dollar in hopes of making a few hundred dollars on each one.
My question is though, what constitutes legal, real, sueable, concrete validation????
That really sounds about right. I posted on another that I believed they had to have the original contract. I believe that I actually read it somewhere on this site. The debt forum probaly would be an excellent place to post that question. I also think it is worth your time to visit that law guru site. Who better to ask than an atty?
Well, I thought I would kick it around here a little bit and see what everyones thoughts were here on it, I did post it on the debt forum and did not get a good concrete answer either. I thought it would be a good discussion here and would like to see what other responses I get before I pursue something else.
I would still pursue getting the answer somewhere else. sometimes we here are split on things when it comes to a concrete answer ( kind od like the 30 or 180 days thing I inquired about) I would want to know for my own protection.
I really hope that you will do that. A lot of people do not come back and update. I think that is a sad thing because it adds more knowledge to the forum.
debt validation is an instrument which is basically used by the borrowers to check whether he actually owes the debt to the creditor or the collection agency which these agencies are claiming. As per the fair debt collection practices Act, the customer can ask the debt collector in writing to validate the debt and the debt collector must stop collection of the debt until and unless he validates the debt. However, the debt collector must validate the debt within 30 days of receipt of the the debt validation letter.
I agree with Justin. However if the debt is sold by the original creditor to any collection agency, Debt validation in this case means that the collection agency must prove that the you presently owe the debt to CA. Mostly, what happens is that, these collection agencies purchase these debts at very low price and may not be able to validate your debt. In such case you are no way responsible to pay off the debt.
I am sure alot of people who are new to this site wish they had known that in the beginning. They probaly could have reached a better deal. I know someone who was working 24/7 to improve her credit and paid of past collections that were a lot higher after passing through several creditors. Had she of known of debt validation and the pay for deletes her credit report could have been a lot better than it is now. I think that would have been very deserving for as hard as she worked. When it comes to the pay for deletes I think these agencies need to let the consumer know that it is an option. Especially for the ones who are facing the debt trap for the very first time. It really doesn't take much for the collector to get these b ad marks removed.
I know I would have used this leverage to get things deleted, they reported it paid, they could just as easily remove it, but they do not have the power to remove the original creditors black mark and if the add on collectors do not count on your score then what is the benefit of having them remove it any way. Now if them reporting it also lowers your score, which I have always heard that it don't, even if ten report it, it only counts as one debt. How does one removing it help?
Oh I see so it really wouldn't do much good besides saving a little paper when printing your credit report. So I wonder why people do go for the pfd? If the OC is still on there what would it matter? That doesn't make too much sense to me. I am sure there is a good reason for it. Maybe someone will let us know. If not it just backs up my idea that only one can list.
I too have a judgment supeona from Morgan and Pottinger. They ar representing Capital One. Who refused to let me make smaller payments. I live on <$700.00/month and I guess chapter 13 is the only way. I already filed 7 in 2002. I am disabled and want to know if the courts will negotiate and possibly let me pay a little less tha the Bankruptcy attorney said. He said due to the fact that I own a 1995 single wide mobile home on an acre of land my payments at eh least would be $120.00. I can posssibly do $100.00 /month. This means giving up my computer and phone. But it is worth it not to run from creditors. Trying to clear my problems forever no more cards!!!
Once you have filed for a chapter 7 bankruptcy, you are not entitled to file for another chapter 13 bankruptcy unless you receive a discharge under chapter 7. This is laid down by Federal Laws pertaining to bankruptcy effective from October, 2007. So, if you have a discharge then you can file a chapter 13 bankruptcy, in which you can place a payment plan to the creditor under the supervision of the court.
A few CA's have told me they "are not obligated to send debt validations." How would I get around this? I had a few CA's calling, about debts, that were past my states SOL, AND,..a few have called about debts that actually have 'fallen off' my credit. Any advice?
SD, for the debts that are past the statute of limitation and definately the ones that have fallen of you need to send an SOL expiriy letter. Carol gave me a exccelllent example one on another post. Sorry to say I do not quite remember which one.
As for the debt validation this is your irght per the Fair Debt Collection practice. I would suggest to the next collector that they take a look at it. Sometimes you need to let these places know that you didn't fall off a turnip truck and actually know what your rights are.
validation of a debt is competent evidence that the party requesting payment is the correct party to pay, that the amount is accurate and legal, and that you’re the correct person they’re looking for.
Validation applies to ANYONE that’s ever received a letter from a collection agency asking for payment. There are many collection agencies that break the law while attempting to collect debts (approximately as many as there are collectors). Validation is a right afforded to you under the FDCPA section 809. That section also states that if a request for validation is received within 30 days of initial contact, the collector MUST cease all collection activities until validation is provided. Continued collection activities include, but isn’t limited to, reporting the alleged debt to the CRAs, sending dunning letters, phone calls asking for payment, or reducing the debt to a judgment
I am not sure. Do you ever go on the debtcc forums? They have a lot of information about it on that site. I always thought that a company had to provide proof that the debt belonged to you and that the you, the debtor owed them. There is probably a much clearer explanation.
I have heard, now this is just hearsay, that they must prove that you have a contract with them as you do with the original creditor, if not, then it is no good. However, if there is something in the original agreement with the original creditor that they can sell it off and those collectors can collect it lawfully, then the collection agency must produce that contract between the collection agency and the original creditor that the contract was actually transferred to them for a collection account.
When these collection agency purchases these dead accounts they often buy them in bulk, with little or no paper work in hopes that the everyday consumer will just pay what they are requesting and they make their profit.
Now, this is only what I have learned through my ordeal of dealing with the collection agencies is that they usually don't have anything to back their claim, I do not owe the debt to them, I had no contract with them, they purchase these accounts for pennies on the dollar in hopes of making a few hundred dollars on each one.
My question is though, what constitutes legal, real, sueable, concrete validation????
That really sounds about right. I posted on another that I believed they had to have the original contract. I believe that I actually read it somewhere on this site. The debt forum probaly would be an excellent place to post that question. I also think it is worth your time to visit that law guru site. Who better to ask than an atty?
Well, I thought I would kick it around here a little bit and see what everyones thoughts were here on it, I did post it on the debt forum and did not get a good concrete answer either. I thought it would be a good discussion here and would like to see what other responses I get before I pursue something else.
I would still pursue getting the answer somewhere else. sometimes we here are split on things when it comes to a concrete answer ( kind od like the 30 or 180 days thing I inquired about) I would want to know for my own protection.
If I find out anything else on it, I will post it here for you.
I really hope that you will do that. A lot of people do not come back and update. I think that is a sad thing because it adds more knowledge to the forum.
debt validation is an instrument which is basically used by the borrowers to check whether he actually owes the debt to the creditor or the collection agency which these agencies are claiming. As per the fair debt collection practices Act, the customer can ask the debt collector in writing to validate the debt and the debt collector must stop collection of the debt until and unless he validates the debt. However, the debt collector must validate the debt within 30 days of receipt of the the debt validation letter.
I agree with Justin. However if the debt is sold by the original creditor to any collection agency, Debt validation in this case means that the collection agency must prove that the you presently owe the debt to CA. Mostly, what happens is that, these collection agencies purchase these debts at very low price and may not be able to validate your debt. In such case you are no way responsible to pay off the debt.
I am sure alot of people who are new to this site wish they had known that in the beginning. They probaly could have reached a better deal. I know someone who was working 24/7 to improve her credit and paid of past collections that were a lot higher after passing through several creditors. Had she of known of debt validation and the pay for deletes her credit report could have been a lot better than it is now. I think that would have been very deserving for as hard as she worked. When it comes to the pay for deletes I think these agencies need to let the consumer know that it is an option. Especially for the ones who are facing the debt trap for the very first time. It really doesn't take much for the collector to get these b ad marks removed.
I know I would have used this leverage to get things deleted, they reported it paid, they could just as easily remove it, but they do not have the power to remove the original creditors black mark and if the add on collectors do not count on your score then what is the benefit of having them remove it any way. Now if them reporting it also lowers your score, which I have always heard that it don't, even if ten report it, it only counts as one debt. How does one removing it help?
Oh I see so it really wouldn't do much good besides saving a little paper when printing your credit report. So I wonder why people do go for the pfd? If the OC is still on there what would it matter? That doesn't make too much sense to me. I am sure there is a good reason for it. Maybe someone will let us know. If not it just backs up my idea that only one can list.
Bankruptcy
I too have a judgment supeona from Morgan and Pottinger. They ar representing Capital One. Who refused to let me make smaller payments. I live on <$700.00/month and I guess chapter 13 is the only way. I already filed 7 in 2002. I am disabled and want to know if the courts will negotiate and possibly let me pay a little less tha the Bankruptcy attorney said. He said due to the fact that I own a 1995 single wide mobile home on an acre of land my payments at eh least would be $120.00. I can posssibly do $100.00 /month. This means giving up my computer and phone. But it is worth it not to run from creditors. Trying to clear my problems forever no more cards!!!
Hi Lotta,
Once you have filed for a chapter 7 bankruptcy, you are not entitled to file for another chapter 13 bankruptcy unless you receive a discharge under chapter 7. This is laid down by Federal Laws pertaining to bankruptcy effective from October, 2007. So, if you have a discharge then you can file a chapter 13 bankruptcy, in which you can place a payment plan to the creditor under the supervision of the court.
validation
A few CA's have told me they "are not obligated to send debt validations." How would I get around this? I had a few CA's calling, about debts, that were past my states SOL, AND,..a few have called about debts that actually have 'fallen off' my credit. Any advice?
SD, for the debts that are past the statute of limitation and definately the ones that have fallen of you need to send an SOL expiriy letter. Carol gave me a exccelllent example one on another post. Sorry to say I do not quite remember which one.
As for the debt validation this is your irght per the Fair Debt Collection practice. I would suggest to the next collector that they take a look at it. Sometimes you need to let these places know that you didn't fall off a turnip truck and actually know what your rights are.
Hi sd,
Like Firey said, you need to send the CA an expired SOL notification letter. Through this letter you will inform them that the SOL has expired and hence, they must stop any efforts of collecting the debt.
As far as "fallen-off" debts are concerned, all negative items fall off after 7 years. However, if the CA is still persisting on the debts, then you can send debt validation letter asking for verification of the debt.
validation of a debt is competent evidence that the party requesting payment is the correct party to pay, that the amount is accurate and legal, and that you’re the correct person they’re looking for.
Validation applies to ANYONE that’s ever received a letter from a collection agency asking for payment. There are many collection agencies that break the law while attempting to collect debts (approximately as many as there are collectors). Validation is a right afforded to you under the FDCPA section 809. That section also states that if a request for validation is received within 30 days of initial contact, the collector MUST cease all collection activities until validation is provided. Continued collection activities include, but isn’t limited to, reporting the alleged debt to the CRAs, sending dunning letters, phone calls asking for payment, or reducing the debt to a judgment