member profile picture

I sent a second DV letter to Unifund after they did not reply within 30 days. I finally got a response, but the only thing it contained were 6 statements from varying time frames.

Isnt that verification and not validation?




I would say that copies of statements constitutes validation. Is it your account?

Sub: #1 posted on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 18:17

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4665 | Credits: 308.23)

I thought there had to be something with a signature on it? Proper validation has been an ongoing debate, the laws just aren't specific about what actually constitutes what valdiation is. At least from where I sit, and I have read it over and over again and still feel unclear about it. :?

Sub: #2 posted on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 20:12

Shazzers Shazzers
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 17342 | Credits: 1592.85)

The account is mine. Im not disputing that. But I have heard very bad things about unifund and just want to be sure they legally have the right to collect on the debt.

The statements are only the ones leading up to the chargoff, so the only items on the bill are late fees...

Sub: #3 posted on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 20:40

Unregistered


in illinois that would be verifcation not validation.i know that does not apply for all states though.

Sub: #4 posted on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 20:55

paulmergel paulmergel
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 15506 | Credits: 1356.56)

I thought it was verification as well.

From what ive read on Unifund, their validation is always to send out old statements and not the agreement that says they have a right to collect on the debt.

Sub: #5 posted on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 22:09

Unregistered


Unless IL has some enhancements to the fdcpa, all they are required to send is verification of the debt or the name and address of the OC or a copy of the judgement. If the statements had the name and address of the OC and it is on the OC's stationary and not Unifunds, I would say that they validated. Everything you've read about Unifraud is well documented fact. They are scummy bottom-feeders. Are you still w/in SOL?

Sub: #6 posted on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 22:40

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4665 | Credits: 308.23)

I thought that verrification was the same thing as validation?

Sub: #7 posted on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 23:03

smo65d11 smo65d11

(Posts: 1468 | Credits: 133.12)

well i did check with my AG and states attorney.you must have
either a signed copy of the contract or something form the
original creditor stating this CA is either hired by the OC or
has purchased the debt from the OC.it is too easy nowadays
to acquire statements like that.

Sub: #8 posted on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 23:13

paulmergel paulmergel
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 15506 | Credits: 1356.56)

With those statements,they could have a cause of action for a open account or account stated law suit. Validation is not the end all way of defeating a claim if they have evidence. All the additional info we always ask for can be asked for during the discovery phase of a law suit. Since this company has a sorry reputation,you need to look for violations of the fdcpa & Fcra which you could use to your advantage during a law suit if the claim progresses to that level.

Sub: #9 posted on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 20:10

cajunbulldog cajunbulldog
Moderators
(Posts: 4859 | Credits: 425)

Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 1.25 GB.
  • Allowed file types: txt pdf jpg jpeg png.
Post as a guest
CAPTCHA
This question (Case Insensitive) is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Post as a member

Share post

Page loaded in 1.300 seconds.