Author Topic: Validation Violation  (Read 926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1594
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2014 01:15:05 AM »
If it is in response to a validation request, I don't think you'll see a mini miranda. At least not on a credit card statement.

A validation response is a communication.   Why should it not include that the communication is from a debt collector?

maylaur

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1268
  • I donated!!
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2014 01:17:56 AM »
A validation response is a communication.   Why should it not include that the communication is from a debt collector?

It would not be on the OC's statements, so where would it be if no other papers were included?
Anything I post is from my own personal experience, and might not apply to your own situation. 
I do not offer legal advice; for that, please consult a lawyer.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1594
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2014 02:30:28 AM »
It would not be on the OC's statements, so where would it be if no other papers were included?

Look at the return address on the envelope.  If it's the CA's address, then the verification came from the CA.

maylaur

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1268
  • I donated!!
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2014 03:13:24 AM »
Look at the return address on the envelope.  If it's the CA's address, then the verification came from the CA.

Yes, but where would they put the mini miranda if no papers other than the OC's papers were in the envelope?  It would not be on those and it would not be on the envelope itself.  So, not including a separate paper with the miranda would be a violation?
Anything I post is from my own personal experience, and might not apply to your own situation. 
I do not offer legal advice; for that, please consult a lawyer.

arnanda

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1026
  • Take it or leave it.
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2014 07:21:17 AM »
I wouldn't say it's weak.  Usually a letter is included by the CA: this is the validation you requested.  This is a communication from a debt collector.  Any violation of FDCPA, big or small, is a violation. 
TUN - 791/850 (05-28-2014). EQU - 816/850 (01-19-2014). EXP - 789/850 (08-07-2014).
Abbreviations 1st Thread
Abbreviations 2nd Thread
Smurfy's Ease of Use

Mech85

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 132
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2014 09:31:40 AM »
Usually a letter is included by the CA: this is the validation you requested.  This is a communication from a debt collector. 

They didn't include a letter, nor is there anything that requires them to include a letter. I think it's weak because it's the only thing he sued over and it's debatable whether it's a communication since they didn't include anything other than creditor statements (which he was expecting to receive when he disputed). They could also claim B.F.E.; that they usually include a letter but it fell out of the stack, as long as they can show it's a policy they regularly abide by. If they win either of those arguments then he could be on the hook for their costs with no other violations to fall back on.

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2014 04:15:11 PM »
A validation response is a communication.   Why should it not include that the communication is from a debt collector?

4)  a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector;


They are mailing what was requested. The consumer obviously knows that he is communicating with a debt collector. If this is a violation, it's one of those super picky ones that net you no money.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

arnanda

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1026
  • Take it or leave it.
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2014 06:00:30 PM »
That's regarding the dunn letter.  Here is the applicable part from 807 (11):

Quote
...the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector...

A handwritten envelope with credit card statements mailed from CA's address is communication directly about the debt.
TUN - 791/850 (05-28-2014). EQU - 816/850 (01-19-2014). EXP - 789/850 (08-07-2014).
Abbreviations 1st Thread
Abbreviations 2nd Thread
Smurfy's Ease of Use

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2014 07:47:44 PM »
It's weak in my opinion. Judges are tired of this. You get zero money in court for a picky violation of this kind. Show us any case law where somebody got the maximum 1K for this violation. Subsequent notification is split between all the circuits. The statements sent were in response to a request by a consumer who obviously knew he / she  was dealing with a debt collector. Go to court and prove otherwise.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1594
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2014 05:38:46 PM »
It's weak in my opinion. Judges are tired of this. You get zero money in court for a picky violation of this kind. Show us any case law where somebody got the maximum 1K for this violation. Subsequent notification is split between all the circuits. The statements sent were in response to a request by a consumer who obviously knew he / she  was dealing with a debt collector. Go to court and prove otherwise.

How is it weak?  Just because it's one violation?

1692e(11)

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.


1692a(2)

(2) The term “communication” means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.

Was the verification not a communication?   Was it not a subsequent communication?

The FDCPA was amended in 2006 to exclude legal pleadings from 1692g(a).  Where in the Act is a verification response excluded from the definition of communication or 1692e(11)?


Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2014 08:09:25 PM »
I didn't say it was not a technical violation, it just strikes me as the type that will get you $50. (weak) When you ask a debt collector to send you verification and they do, it can be assumed that you knew you were dealing with a debt collector. Sending the information you asked for does not strike me as the "abusive practices" the FDCPA was designed to protect consumers from.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1594
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2014 08:47:47 PM »
I didn't say it was not a technical violation, it just strikes me as the type that will get you $50. (weak) When you ask a debt collector to send you verification and they do, it can be assumed that you knew you were dealing with a debt collector. Sending the information you asked for does not strike me as the "abusive practices" the FDCPA was designed to protect consumers from.

I see what you're saying.  But the FDCPA does not protect against every "abusive practice".   As was stated in my previous post, legal pleadings are excluded from 1692g which the initial communication.   A consumer may never hear from debt collector until he's sued.  The plaintiff's pleading may not inform the consumer of the nature of the debt.  While the consumer may be able to request a motion for a more definite statement, he would not be able to request validation and seek relief under the FDCPA.

1692e(11) exists for a purpose.  Where does the Act or precedent conclude that once a consumer knows that a communication is from debt collector, 1692e(11) no longer applies?


BigSal

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 780
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2014 08:10:44 PM »
I didn't say it was not a technical violation, it just strikes me as the type that will get you $50. (weak) When you ask a debt collector to send you verification and they do, it can be assumed that you knew you were dealing with a debt collector. Sending the information you asked for does not strike me as the "abusive practices" the FDCPA was designed to protect consumers from.

In this case, the docs they sent give the impression it is from the OC.  But for the return address, I would have thought it was an OC communication.  I'm savvier than many consumers in this area and was confused by what I got.
If you need legal advice, go see a lawyer.

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2014 09:05:56 PM »
Inside was merely copies of old statements


In this case, the docs they sent give the impression it is from the OC.

The docs WERE from the OC. That's where they got them. That is debt validation. Why would you be confused when presented with credit card statements from your account, detailing charges and payments you made? What else were you expecting them to send you?
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1594
Re: Validation Violation
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2014 10:44:42 PM »
Inside was merely copies of old statements


In this case, the docs they sent give the impression it is from the OC.

The docs WERE from the OC. That's where they got them. That is debt validation. Why would you be confused when presented with credit card statements from your account, detailing charges and payments you made? What else were you expecting them to send you?

Docs that were created by the OC and sent by the OC are 2 different things.

But that's beside the point.  The FDCPA has been amended to allow for exceptions.  Where is an exception to 1692e(11)?


 

credit