The only thing that I've read that collectors
have to provide in regards to prooving that a
person owes money is "name and address of
original creditor" and the word "validate" comes
up here and there. And, oh goodie, there's no
time limit on that one.

This is after jamming through the FDCA and the
FCRPA a few times.

For now, I've come to the conclusion that the
term "validate" is SUBJECTIVE.

How annoying.

It blows my mind to think that consumers and
CRAs aren't REALLY playing by the same set of
rules. Let alone the collection agencys. Good
grief.

If there were a CLEAR definition of what these
dopes have to provide, it would sure help.

Nonetheless, at the very least, they failed to
provide the address of the original creditor.

Thank goodness for their lack of brain cells.

But is that enough to base a suit on? Sounds
pretty thin to me.

I REALLY want to legally defeat these people, but
I'm swinging at air so it seems.

Can a court or judge ORDER them to release all
records for discovery? Beats me. Sounds expensive.

Also, there's much conflicting information as to
what gives a CA the right to pull
an inquiry. So... I guess I'm stuck as to what
to do with that one.

I KNOW what's happening is wrong.

For cyin' out loud, they sent me a document that
says: "You owe us because we say so". (And they're
doing this to HUNDREDS of folks)

Producing HARD evidence in this situation is like
trying to catch an invisible teflon bug.

I can HEAR the little pr!ck though.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup