How to request validation of a debt
March 11, 2010 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) gives consumers the right to request validation of a debt. Under the FDCPA, a debt collector must send you a written notice within 5 days of their first communication with you. The notice must tell you, among other things, about your right to request validation of the debt.
In my experience, consumers should almost always request validation of the debt, particularly if a debt buyer is involved, because the more information you have, the better. But here are a couple things to keep in mind about the validation process:
- You must request validation in writing and you must request it within 30 days of your receipt of the required notice. Under the FDCPA, a debt collector doesn’t have to honor a request for validation unless it’s in writing and unless they receive it within 30 days of your receipt of the notice. As a practical matter, many debt collectors will honor a verbal request for validation and some will even honor a request made after the 30 days. But if you want to protect your right to have your debt validated, you must do it in writing and within 30 days. I recommend sending the letter via certified mail so that you can prove that they received it and when they received it.
- Once you’ve properly requested validation, the debt collector must cease all collection attempts until they provide it to you. There are some websites that claim that a debt collector must validate a debt within 30 days and if they don’t the debt is forgiven. This is simply not true. There is no time limit to how long the debt collector has to validate your debt. They just can’t call you, write you, sue you, or take any other action until they validate. If they do, they’ve violated the FDCPA.
- A debt collector can’t use your failure to request validation of a debt against you. The FDCPA prevents collectors from using your failure to request validation as evidence that you owe the debt.
- There aren’t any clear requirements about what type of documents are sufficient validation. The FDCPA doesn’t define validation, and the FTC has said that validation only needs to confirm that the debt collector is pursuing the right person and the right amount.
- Collection activity during the 30 day validation period can’t “overshadow” your right to request validation. This can be a little tricky, but here’s an example: let’s say you receive the validation notice on March 1 and then they serve you with a lawsuit on March 5. Under the FDCPA, you have 30 days–or until March 31–to request validation. And in Minnesota you have 20 days–or until March 26–to respond to a lawsuit. So because you have to answer the lawsuit before your time to request validation is up, the lawsuit “overshadows” your right to request validation. This is a violation of the FDCPA.
If you live in Minnesota and believe that a debt collector has violated your rights under the FDCPA, feel free to contact me for a free case evaluation.
Texas man fights back against debt collectors
February 2, 2010 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
Craig Cunningham grew tired of repeated debt collection calls. So he decided to fight back by suing the debt collectors for violating the FDCPA and Texas state laws. In fact, Cunningham has filed 18 lawsuits and won over $20,000 from debt collectors. The story details a number of the tactics Cunningham has developed to bait collectors into violating the law. According to the story, he’s created quite a stir among the collection industry. In response to Cunningham and others like him, a new business opportunity has sprung up–one dedicated to helping collection agencies identify and avoid repeat FDCPA litigants.
I have mixed feelings about this story. On the one hand, I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for the debt collection industry–an industry that receives more consumer complaints than any other. But the FDCPA, and state laws like it, are designed to protect people against debt collection harassment and abuse. They’re not designed to be used to game the system to avoid paying debts. I’m also concerned that the debt collection industry will point to Cunningham and other aggressive debtors in their fight against stronger consumer regulations.
Dallas Observer | Better Off Deadbeat: Craig Cunningham Has a Simple Solution for Getting Bill Collectors Off His Back. He Sues Them | January 20, 2010 (via Consumerist)
How the FDCPA protects people from collection harassment and abuse
January 26, 2010 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
If you’ve been a victim of debt collection harassment or abuse and want to fight back, feel free to contact me for a free case evaluation.
CNN: Woman sues debt collector over husband’s death
December 10, 2009 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
CNN just ran a video segment about a Florida woman who is suing a debt collector for allegedly causing her husband’s death. I previously wrote about the case here.
Debt collector sues the wrong person then blames him for its mistake
December 7, 2009 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
Pressler & Pressler, a large debt collection law firm, sued the wrong Mark Hoyte. Although Hoyte’s social security number and date of birth did not match the ones in Pressler’s file, they continued with the lawsuit. Not until Pressler’s attorney talked to Hoyte in the hallway outside the courtroom did they finally admit that they had sued the wrong person and agree to dismiss the case. But the judge was not impressed. Judge Noach Dear asked Pressler’s attorney why his law firm didn’t make sure it had the right person before suing. The attorney responded by saying said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors. “So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.
But instead of conceding its mistake, Pressler’s lawyer then tried to blame Hoyte. He asked Hoyte if he had provided Pressler with any written proof that he wasn’t the debtor. Hoyte responded by saying that Pressler never asked for written proof. Incredibly, Pressler’s attorney then told Hoyte that “[s]o without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so”?
This is yet another example of the sue first, ask questions later approach used by most debt collectors. But for the debt collector to blame the innocent consumer, in open court and on the record, takes quite a bit of, ahem, nerve. Judge Dear is considering sanctions against Pressler for its easily-avoided mistake.
Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned | New York Times | November 27, 2009