LadyNRed, How do you respond to this article?

Posted by questionauthority (68.33.0.198) on March 02, 2004 at 15:07:32:

In Reply to: Re: Why Chat, Question regarding extent of validation posted by LadynRed on March 01, 2004 at 17:30:42:

Misinformation Concerning Debt Validation Spreads

A growing number of consumer self-help Web sites are advocating positions concerning validation that are unsupported by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This has led many consumers to procrastinate paying their debts and to file complaints with their attorneys general, the Better Business Bureaus, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the ACA Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee.

Consumers are led to believe that the FDCPA allows them to request verification at any time, even after paying the debt. Furthermore, they are often told that a collection agency has 30 days to respond to the request, not that they have 30 days to make the request. Consumers are also told that debt validation and debt verification are different things, that they should only request validation and that proper validation includes items such as a copy of a contract signed by the consumer agreeing to pay the debt, a copy of the collector's contract with the creditor and evidence that the collector is licensed in the consumer's state. Though this material is not required to validate a debt, consumers are lead to believe that failure to provide such information frees them from their obligation to pay the debt.

The FDCPA requires that a collection agency cease collection activity until it provides verification of a debt upon written request received during the validation period. It does not, unfortunately, define “verification.” The FTC and the courts have. The FTC, in its official commentary to the FDCPA, states that validation is “… intended to assist the consumer when a debt collector inadvertently contacts the wrong consumer at the start of his collection efforts.” 53 Fed. Reg. 50109 (Dec. 13, 1998).

The courts have adopted a similar interpretation, stating: “[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to 'eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid.' S.Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977). There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.” Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 891 (1999) (citations omitted).

Debt verification is intended, therefore, to be a straightforward process in which the debt collector verifies that the agency is attempting to collect the right amount of money from the proper party using information provided by the creditor.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup