What does validating a debt mean byzantinische zeitschrift online dating
The debtor replied by letter again, demanding substantiation of the beginning balance.The law firm sent a third letter itemizing the debt without explaining the beginning balance and enclosing a copy of the lien that it later placed on the debtor’s condo.The Sixth Circuit’s somewhat flexible standard allows for different types of verification depending on the nature of the dispute.For example, where a person claims he is not the debtor but does not provide identification sufficient to support his claim, the debt collector could provide summary information about the account and the last four digits of the responsible party’s social security number.Verification of that debt will most likely require “an itemized accounting detailing the transaction in an account that has led to the debt.” If the debt collector is unsure of the nature of the dispute, nothing prevents it from trying to find out more about the dispute provided the debt collector does not try to collect (including furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies) the debt in the interim.And, of course, there is always the option of closing the account in response to the dispute as permitted by § 1692g(b). Haddad received an initial letter from the defendant law firm notifying him that he owed a delinquent condominium assessment bill. LEXIS 13498, the Sixth Circuit expanded the requirement for how a debt collector must respond to a debtor’s request for verification of a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U. The Court confronted the meaning of “verification” under § 1692g(b), because that term is not defined in the FDCPA.
In so doing, it announced a new standard for verification under § 1692g(b), holding that “the verification provision must be interpreted to provide the consumer with notice of how and when the debt was originally incurred or other sufficient notice from which the consumer could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation.” , 2014 U. For example, in those cases where the debtor appears to acknowledge the account belongs to him but disputes owing the balance or any portion of it, the Sixth Circuit stated that “an itemized accounting detailing the transaction in an account that has led to the debt is often the best means of accomplishing that objective.” . Then the Sixth Circuit, stating that it believed it was making the debt collector’s job easier, said that the information used to verify a debt “does not have to be extensive.It should provide the date and nature of the transaction that led to the debt, such as a purchase on a particular date, a missed rental payment for a specific month, a fee for a particular service provided at a specified time, or a fine for a particular offense assessed on certain date.” to ensure their compliance management systems are updated to meet this new verification standard and otherwise comply with Section 1692g(b).First, because credit reporting may be considered collection activity, debt collectors should not furnish information to the credit reporting agencies until the validation/verification period has expired and the debt collector has not received a dispute.Haddad sued the law firm under § 1692e and § 1692g(b) of the FDCPA, claiming that the law firm had not properly verified the debt before resuming collection activity. There, the debt collector did not obtain additional information from the creditor to verify the debt; it responded to the dispute by confirming the debtor’s name, address, last four digits of his social security number, the outstanding balance of the debt, the date the debt was incurred, and the date the current creditor had purchased the debt.The District Court granted summary judgment to the law firm. The law firm failed this test because it did not provide information about the nature of the beginning balance that Haddad disputed and instead continued its collection efforts. In announcing this new standard for verification, the Sixth Circuit reviewed other Circuit’s rulings on the same issue and found that those courts had interpreted “verification” as requiring “nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed” and that “the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.” Cir. However, the Court was quick to point out that in each of those cases and in others the debt collectors had gone beyond the standard verification requirement by sending itemized statements to the debtors which provided sufficient information to allow the consumer to dispute the debt. Circuit held that the information provided to the consumer was sufficient verification because it provided enough information to put the consumer on notice that he was not the debtor when he realized that the last four digits of his social security number were different from that of the actual debtor.