Grounds for a lawsuit against collection agency

[bholabhala]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX
So here's the deal. I pulled up my credit report and noticed an account sitting on there by a collection agency, located in Waco, TX (Myself, i am in Dallas, TX).

When i asked this collection agency to verify the validity of debt, they sent me a computer printout that just breaks down the charges and does not prove that these services were actually used by me (its a medical bill).

Since they were not able to prove that this account is mine, do i have ground for a lawsuit against this collection agency?

Any help will be highly appreciate.

 

[swalsh411]

No. Your next step is to dispute the item you believe to be incorrect with the credit bureau(s). There are instructions on how to do this on their web sites; it's not difficult.

 

[bholabhala]

No. Your next step is to dispute the item you believe to be incorrect with the credit bureau(s). There are instructions on how to do this on their web sites; it's not difficult.

According to FDCPA, arent they required to prove that this account is mine? Like a signature, ID copy or something, proving that i availed the services?

 

[Zigner]

When i asked this collection agency to verify the validity of debt, they sent me a computer printout that just breaks down the charges and does not prove that these services were actually used by me (its a medical bill).

So, in a nutshell, they gave you exactly what they are required, by law, to give you.

What's the problem?

 

[bholabhala]

So, in a nutshell, they gave you exactly what they are required, by law, to give you.

What's the problem?

OIGHT
makes sense... thank you

 

[justalayman]

According to FDCPA, arent they required to prove that this account is mine? Like a signature, ID copy or something, proving that i availed the services?

No, that is not what they are required to provide to you. They are required to verify the account as represented is true. They must do that by providing information directly from the original creditor stating it is correct. That's it.

 

[Bosco]

Like Layman said, they have to provide documentation from the original creditor that shows you owe the debt. There is no hard and fast rule for what that entails, but at the very minimum you'll need a list of transactions, dates and amounts.

If what they sent you did not come from the original creditor, they have not validated. I'd send them a "try again" letter and if they still don't get off your credit report, sue em.

 

[Zigner]

Like Layman said, they have to provide documentation from the original creditor that shows you owe the debt. There is no hard and fast rule for what that entails, but at the very minimum you'll need a list of transactions, dates and amounts.

If what they sent you did not come from the original creditor, they have not validated. I'd send them a "try again" letter and if they still don't get off your credit report, sue em.

Sue them for what? Where did you get your "minimum" requirements? They sure aren't from the applicable laws

 

[Bosco]

Sue them for what? Where did you get your "minimum" requirements? They sure aren't from the applicable laws

Its times like these where my signature is so appropriate.

 

[justalayman]

=Bosco;2825723]Like Layman said, they have to provide documentation from the original creditor that shows you owe the debt. There is no hard and fast rule for what that entails, but at the very minimum you'll need a list of transactions, dates and amounts.

You need to read the FTC opinions on this. All the verification is is an affirmation from the OC that the person named and the amount is correct. There is no requirement for any other information.

FDCPA Staff Opinion: LeFevre-Wollman

and a note of clarification: the verification must be provided to the debtor by the CA but the information must be a result of the validation demand of the debtor. In other words; you demand validation and then the CA must contact the creditor to obtain the verification.

If what they sent you did not come from the original creditor, they have not validated. I'd send them a "try again" letter and if they still don't get off your credit report, sue em.

the problem is; this was not the result of a CA contacting the OP. It was discovered via a review of their CR. I have yet to find anything that really addresses the issue but as far as I see, the FDCPA is not invoked unless the CA makes the contact.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, you are definitely showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Step back from the keys and learn.

 

[Bosco]

You need to read the FTC opinions on this. All the verification is is an affirmation from the OC that the person named and the amount is correct. There is no requirement for any other information.

FDCPA Staff Opinion: LeFevre-Wollman

I know the Wollman letter very well. It's been used in many of the cases involving what constitutes validation. Other cases, including the Chaudry (sp?) one outline what that verification shall entail, which is exactly what I said above.

the problem is; this was not the result of a CA contacting the OP. It was discovered via a review of their CR. I have yet to find anything that really addresses the issue but as far as I see, the FDCPA is not invoked unless the CA makes the contact.

Talk about a gigantic leap in logic. I don't even think the collections agents themselves have tried arguing that one in court, hence why you found nothing that addresses the issue. Either way, the OP is in Texas. They need to be taking most of their action under that much stronger law.

Yes, you are definitely showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Step back from the keys and learn.

Good one buddy. That's about a step higher than "I'm rubber you're glue".

 

[bholabhala]

Oight guys. Here is the deal. I am noobie to all this. Dont know much about laws & all, but do have a little thing, called common sense. How can a computer printout prove that this is my account?

no signature, no copy of ID, no contract between the original creditor and the collector, permitting them to collect on this account. How can this be a verified account? How can this account tied to me?

 

[justalayman]

Bosco;2825768]I know the Wollman letter very well. It's been used in many of the cases involving what constitutes validation. Other cases, including the Chaudry (sp?) one outline what that verification shall entail, which is exactly what I said above.

Please show me where in Chaudhry your statement is supported:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981024.P.pdf

Talk about a gigantic leap in logic. I don't even think the collections agents themselves have tried arguing that one in court, hence why you found nothing that addresses the issue. Either way, the OP is in Texas. They need to be taking most of their action under that much stronger law.

it's because even by the FDCPA's statement, it is not invoked by a consumers contacting the CA.

§ 809. Validation of debts
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a
consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,
a debt collector shall, unless the following information is
contained in the initial communication or the consumer has
paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—

so, did the CA contact the OP in an attempt to collect a debt? It would appear not. As such, I see no invocation of the requirements of the FDCPA.


I have not read much about Texas' version of the FDCPA, but alas, the OP referred to a requirement of the FDCPA as a basis for his suit.

 

[justalayman]

no signature, no copy of ID, no contract between the original creditor and the collector, permitting them to collect on this account. How can this be a verified account? How can this account tied to me?

none of that is required (at least by the FDCPA. I'll let Bosco dig up the Texas version of the law)

what many people think requires the CA to provide tons of information is a big misunderstanding. The requirement for validation is nothing more than an affirmation by the original creditor that the person named owes the amount stated to the original creditor, or did owe it to them if the debt has subsequently been sold or transferred to another party.

Everything else you speak of is something that you would look for as evidence if you are being sued.