If you have been working on repairing your credit and you have sent validation letters to collection agencies, you probably have received or will receive a semi-form letter back saying that they have verified the account and they are correct. Then they will put in a little modified excerpt from the Chaudrhy v. Gallerizzo case decision to justify their laziness and to deceive you into just accepting their false claim against you. The modified excerpt looks like this:
"verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt."
When I see this in a response for one of my clients, I crack up because it just blares out to me that they don't have anything. You see, the Chaudrhy decision is not about validation with a collection agency!! They take a small piece of the decision and quote it, but they fail to tell you that it has nothing to do with them, has nothing to do with validation, and further, you didn't request "verification", you requested "Validation" and that is something different.
Just so you know, the Chaudrhy decision was about legal fees. The verification of the legal fees was being challenged and the court said that the law firm just had to confirm in writing that the fees they were claiming were the fees that were owed. Legal fees are not collections, unless it has been assigned or sold to a collector. Legal fees are fees that the attorney charges for services rendered. Since when do collectors render services that you "hired" them to perform for you? I'll answer that for you --> NEVER!!
The best way to challenge this type of letter is to send a follow up letter letting them know that you are not an uninformed idiot and that their feeble attempt at validation doesn't even come close to the legal requirements set forth in the FDCPA and appropriate case law. I usually use some of that language in my response letters and then I follow up with laws to defend my demand for validation and what is required. They are in the business of collecting and they are supposed to know the law, yet they are usually fairly ignorant, deceptive to consumers and flagrantly in violation of the law.
Here is a sample of what I put in my letters that you can modify and use against these obnoxious criminals. (Yes, I consider them criminals because they consistently break the law and commit extortion, mail fraud, violation of the RICO Act (racketeering, etc.), and violating both the FDCPA and FCRA, among other illegal acts.)
Dear Sirs, (you can put in the name that they may put on their letter or say To Whom it May Concern, what ever is your fancy)
I am in receipt of your letter dated 01/01/13 in which you claim you have verified the account which I am disputing and in which you attempt to quote a portion of the Chaudrhy case decision to justify your response or to attempt to deceive me, or both. Please understand, your feeble attempt at validation is a joke. In fact, you claim you verified when I didn't request verification, as we both know that verification is merely requesting that you have the right name, address, account number and original creditor. Further, your verification doesn't meet the criteria as defined in Black's Law Dictionary which includes being able to testify to the verification under oath. I Demanded Validation, which you did not provide.
Since you are supposedly professional collectors, you should be aware that if you fail to validate, you are barred from "verifying" with the bureaus as that is collection activity, which is barred until full validation has been accomplished. The Chaudrhy case is not about debt collectors and validation, it is about attorneys' fees. Maybe your incompetence and laziness has prevented you from actually reading the entire case and the entire court decision.
I am requesting from you AGAIN, Validation. Here is what I want from you: The alleged contract with both my wet ink signature and your employee's signature establishing that we have agreed to do business together. Provide proof that at least the four main elements of a contract have been met. Provide me with the alleged contract between the alleged original creditor and me, and proof that at least the four main elements of a contract have been met. Provide me with proof that you have the legal right to collect this alleged debt. Provide a full accounting for the alleged account - all charges, payments, interest accrued, all fees, and the corresponding dates for which every event occurred. (Spears v. Brennan). Prove also that this alleged debt is not time barred, or in simpler terms for feeble minds, outside of my state's statute of limitations.
Please be aware that because you put on the bottom of your letter that it was an attempt to collect a debt, you are already in violation of the FDCPA, and until you validate, you are guilty of mail fraud, racketeering, extortion, and a slew of other felony violations of the law. So, until you fully and legally validate as I have requested, or rather, have demanded from you, you are required by law to cease all collection activity. Should you fail to validate within ____ days, you are to delete any and all references and reportings of this fraudulent and alleged debt from every credit bureau and or repository to which you have reported it to and you are banned from ever selling or assigning this alleged debt to another collector, as that would be another violation of law by conspiring to harass and extort again, along with other violations of law.
I then go on to quote some samples of collection activity, give them a certain number of days in which to comply with my demand for validation and usually put in a limited cease and desist. Sometimes I add some more case law to back up my requirements for validation. I also usually put in there that I am not requesting verification but am demanding validation pursuant to the FDCPA 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b). Then I end it with a Sincerely, and my client's name.
So, don't be afraid to send another letter challenging their arrogance and deception. You don't have to be sweet and nice, because, when are they? And why would you be nice to law breakers? I don't care if the original debt was actually yours. It doesn't matter anymore. You don't owe it to the original creditor anymore because they charged it off and got tax credits, got reimbursed from the insurance that they had on it, and they made profit by selling it. They made money 3 times just in those ways, but they also made money from every dime you paid on it since it was created out of thin air and they never actually lent any real money to you in the first place.
So, fight, fight, fight, and challenge, dispute and challenge some more. Its your legal right and like I always say, "just like when you're a defendant in court, the burden of proof is not on you, it is on them." Make them prove it. Oh, one last thing. They can't legally prove it! If you want to know why, read some of my other posts regarding AmJur and "Subrogation." You will be pleased with what you learn!
If you have any questions or comments, please hit the comment button below. (I love questions and comments). I will respond to you. If you have questions that you don't want to post on here, you can email me. The link to that is up at the top right of this blog!
If you have found this blog helpful to you, please consider donating as a sign of your appreciation for information I have freely given to you. The "Donate" button is on the right side bar. Thank you for your generosity.
