How To Know If A Debt Collector Has Sent You Validation

 When a debt collection company sends you a letter telling you that you owe them for some alleged debt or you see a collection account on your credit reports, you should immediately fire off a letter to them exercising your right to dispute their claim and demand validation, What this means is you are telling them that they have to prove you owe them money and until they do, you have no obligation to pay them anything and until they validate (prove their claim), the law requires them to stop all collection activity.

Collection activity means phone calls to you or people they may think know you, letters to you claiming you owe them, furnishing, updating or verifying information on your credit reports, and even filing a lawsuit against you. This is why it is so important to demand validation from 3rd party collectors.

In your validation letter you need to tell them to send you certain items that will prove that you owe them money. It doesn't have to be a long list. It doesn't have to include outrageous things like proof that they complied with GAAP or items required under the Patriot Act, though you can actually request those items. But the most important items to request are things that prove there is a contract and proof of what they lent you and proof that they have the right to take the place of the alleged original creditor and even proof they have the right to furnish information on your credit reports.

Once you've demanded validation all collection activity should stop. I say "should" but that's not usually the case. Some will just notate the credit reports that the information they furnished is being disputed. Sometimes they add more nonsense like "resolved, consumer disagrees" or "dispute resolved, meets FCRA requirements" or something similar to that. Utter nonsense because they put that on there before they even send you something they claim to be validation.

So if they respond, do you know what qualifies as validation? Validation means the documentary evidence or proof. If you receive a copy of a contract you need to review the contract closely. It won't be a contract between you and their company because in most cases you haven't agreed to do business with them. I say "most cases" because some people sign payment plans with collection companies so they end up having a contract with them. But usually if they send a copy of a contract, it's between you and the alleged original creditor. This is what you need to read carefully. 

When you read any contract that they send you, look for their company name on that contract. You will see your name and maybe the alleged original company name and maybe another company name of  possibly a servicer or guarantor. You won't find the collection company name 99% of the time. So, this contract is not validation. 

The collection company may send you a bunch of monthly billing statements. You won't find the collection company's name on these billing statements. So whether they send you one billing statement or thirty or more billing statements, they aren't validation, They don't prove that they collection company lent anything to you or that you agreed to pay them money.

For medical collections, they may send you the admissions paper that has your signature on it. That form may say that you agree to be responsible and that if you don't pay the medical facility it may go to a collection company, If they don't specifically name the collection company that is claiming you owe them something, it is not validation. YOU have the right to choose who you do business with, If an alleged original creditor decides to sell your information to a 3rd party collection company, in order for it to be enforceable they have to get your permission In Writing PRIOR to the alleged original creditor releasing any of your personal identifying information or account information to them.  If they do this without your consent, it voids the alleged contract. (There's actually a lot going on behind the scenes that voids the alleged contract but this is a big obvious unlawful action),

So, when you get their claim that they Validated, which usually they wrongly claim they "Verified", you need to be all over that and respond to them claiming that you reject their attempt to validate because they neither verified their claim nor did they send the documented proof that shows you contracted to do business with them nor that they lent you anything, Reject their claim, remind them that the law requires them to stop all collection activity unless or until they actually validate (which they absolutely cannot do), and that they need to Cease & Desist until they validate and verify (sworn testimony - they can't do that either because they have no 1st hand knowledge), and make sure to remind them that anything other than removing their lies and slander from your credit reports is collection activity, and is a violation of the FDCPA and the FCRA and is actionable in a court of law. 

Good luck and go get 'em.

By the way, if you can or feel led to, please help support my family with funeral expenses for 4 of our family members. They all died one after the other in less than 30 days and we are not able to pay for all the expenses out of our own pockets.  We have to pay for all the funeral and burial costs before we can hold the services. So, we are grateful for any help you can give us. Please also share the information on your social media. I really thank all of you and appreciate your help and prayers at this time. 

Here is the link to the information about my family's situation right now. 

https://givesendgo.com/lopezfamilyfunerals

Using the Section 609 Credit Repair Process

This is a subject that I have wanted to write about for some time now.  Many of you have heard about this method to repair your credit. Probably some of you have done it.  I'm not a big fan. I heard a lot of reports about people who have used it.  There have been some that have experienced success with this method and most of those were people who used it way back when it first came out.  I have heard of many more people that have used it and not had near the results they were expecting or were assured that they would have.  I too have used the method a couple of times for my clients but had to go back to using the methods I have used successfully for over 3 decades.

My first problem with this method is that it is only disputing with the credit bureaus. When you are going after 3rd party collections, I believe you need to protect yourself with validation demands so that you have it in place in case the collector decides to sue you.  If you have demanded validation, they cannot sue unless they have validated - a task they cannot actually and lawfully succeed at because they do not have first-hand knowledge, they have no contract, and they do not have your permission to collect information and make communications about you and the alleged account.  They have to get that authorization from you, in writing.

This method, the Section 609 method is bureau disputing only.  It is based on a good concept that requires the credit reporting agencies to prove  the verification they claim. This is a task that they NEVER do. They don't have the ability to do because they don't conduct reasonable investigations, they don't collect the documents to support the information furnished, they don't get authentic verification because verification requires sworn testimony (affidavit) accompanied with that supporting documentation. All they have is hearsay, which the courts have deemed as incompetent and inadmissible.

So, here is how it works:

You write a letter to each bureau telling them to provide the documents used to verify or that validate the following accounts.  You  are demanding that the send you the verifiable proof (copy of the original contract between the furnisher and you) that the FCRA requires them to have in your file. The word "file" is very important because they try to convince you that a "file" is the same thing as a credit report, but it is not.

Next, most templates have a table that has the furnisher name (creditor/collector) then the account number, then the dispute says "unverified account" in the final box of the table. One of the requirements under both Section 609 and 611 requires that information that is incomplete, inaccurate, or unverifiable be corrected or deleted. So, just above the table you tell them provide the proof for each account within 30 days or delete it as required by law.

The bottom of the letter tells them to remove all promotional non-account related inquiries and to suppress your information from promotional services - in other words, opting out.  After that is the signature though some variations of this credit repair process has you get each letter notarized.

So that is the method.  There are letters 2, 3 and 4.  Each letter is basically the same, but the language in each consecutive letter gets stronger. The second letter tells them that it's the 2nd written request and they claim to have verified but didn't provide any documentation. You are demanding they provide you the documentation along with the name, title, contact information with the persons who they spoke to or communicated with in their "re-investigation" in order to prove to you that an actual reasonable investigation was done and they acquired the documentation proving the account was verified.

The letter reminds them again that they are required to delete unverified accounts and if they cannot provide that documentation, then it is not verified and must be removed according to Sections 609 and 611.  It also reminds them of their civil liability (meaning you have the right to sue them) under FCRA  617 for willful negligence.

Once again the 3 column table is there with creditor/collection company name, account number and unverified account. You of course remove any accounts that have been removed from the report from the first dispute.

Round 3, letter 3. Almost the exact same as round 2 letter but it says it's the 3rd written request and then above the table you demand that they send the documentation or delete immediately. Again you make sure that you don't dispute any of the accounts that were removed from the first and second disputes.

Round 4. This letter is again slightly different.  It has a header on it that says its a Notice of Pending Litigation Seeking Relief and Monetary Damages pursuant to FCRA Sections 616 and 617. It calls them out for not investigating, not providing documents, falsely claiming the accounts are verified but never sending the proof.  It tells them the 3 previous letters they received disputing the items will be used as exhibits and evidence if they proceed to litigation as will the credit reports showing they have been disputed and claimed to verify.  

This 4th letter is definitely notarized. Also, with each round of disputes you are expected to provide copies of your ID and SS card.  I'm not big on that at all but for this process, it's recommended.  You don't want to give the CRA's any loophole for not doing their job and following the law.

So, that is the process.  I however think that you need to send validation letters to collectors and proof of claim letters to original creditors. You need to demand that they provide you with the documents used to supposedly verify the information that the furnished to the credit bureaus. You let them know that a response letter that provides a summary of the account is NOT verification, is NOT validation, is hearsay and it will be rejected because you agree with the courts that hearsay is incompetent and inadmissible.

In my follow up letters to these collectors and creditors, I call them out for not sending certified copies of original documents, sending a slew of billing statements that are NOT proof of a full accounting, not sending proof of how the account was funded and where those funds came from, proof that the account is still within the statute of limitations, proof of license and bonding to collect in the consumer's state, proof of a Power of Attorney document or written authorization showing that consumer gave their consent to collect information and make communications about the alleged account, and proof that the 3rd party collector was specifically named on any original contract showing they are entitled to collect by having an interest to protect.

I like to write bureau letters that do include Section 609, but I use many other sections of the FCRA, federal acts, code of federal regulations, case law, state statutes, UCC, and other legal ammunition.  I don't like relying on just 1 main section of the FCRA.  I do the same thing with my direct to creditor/collector letters. Demanding proof of claim or validation is important to protect yourself and including laws and the above legal ammunition, proper wording is important to see a higher rate of success in your credit repair journey.

I hope you will find this information helpful.  If you are in need of credit repair assistance and don't feel like taking it on yourself, please contact me at futurefico@gmail.com. I may be able to assist you.