Validation and contracts and FDCPA
This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Does a collector violate the FDCPA when they send validation?
Of course not. However CREDITWRENCH has stated:
If the debtor demands validation of the debt and receives only a copy of the contract he signed then the 3rd party collector has violated FDCPA.
The FDCPA does not define what constitues a valid debt, and for good reason. A valid debt is a question for a trier of fact to determine, and it relates to state law, not the FDCPA.While poor befuddled Normie is correct in saying that FDCPA does not define what constitutes a debt,the FTC opinion letter known as the Wolman letter tells us a lot about what debt validation is not and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not what Normie claims.
The sole purpose of the FDCPA is to control the behavior of a collection agency, not to settle contracts.
What constitutes a valid debt in court would necessarily qualify as proper verification. An actionable violation under 15 USC 1692g can therefore only be determined if the court deems the signed contract to represent an invalid debt. A cause of action cannot occur from the mere offering of a signed contract as verification.Wrong again, Normie! A cause of action can be many things. Denial of due process of law can be another and that in and of itself has nothing at all to do with FDCPA. The law says that a debtor has the right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof and the mere sending of a contract or copy thereof will not satisfy that right of the consumer to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. Clearly, this "Uncle Normie" is a person not educated in the ways of the law and seems to think that the mere publication of his words on a blog will make them fact. Nor hardly.
CREDITWRENCH stating that a collector sending a signed contract as validation is a FDCPA violation is false and misleading. Sorry about that Normie, but why not let your audience decide that for themselves? Your ideas will definitely lead them badly astray.
posted by Uncle Normie at 4:47 AM
Uncle Normie says a contract is validation
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Does a collector violate the FDCPA when they send validation?
Of course not. However CREDITWRENCH has stated:
If the debtor demands validation of the debt and receives only a copy of the contract he signed then the 3rd party collector has violated FDCPA.
The FDCPA does not define what constitues a valid debt, and for good reason. A valid debt is a question for a trier of fact to determine, and it relates to state law, not the FDCPA.While poor befuddled Normie is correct in saying that FDCPA does not define what constitutes a debt,the FTC opinion letter known as the Wolman letter tells us a lot about what debt validation is not and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not what Normie claims.
The sole purpose of the FDCPA is to control the behavior of a collection agency, not to settle contracts.
What constitutes a valid debt in court would necessarily qualify as proper verification. An actionable violation under 15 USC 1692g can therefore only be determined if the court deems the signed contract to represent an invalid debt. A cause of action cannot occur from the mere offering of a signed contract as verification.Wrong again, Normie! A cause of action can be many things. Denial of due process of law can be another and that in and of itself has nothing at all to do with FDCPA. The law says that a debtor has the right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof and the mere sending of a contract or copy thereof will not satisfy that right of the consumer to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. Clearly, this "Uncle Normie" is a person not educated in the ways of the law and seems to think that the mere publication of his words on a blog will make them fact. Nor hardly.
CREDITWRENCH stating that a collector sending a signed contract as validation is a FDCPA violation is false and misleading. Sorry about that Normie, but why not let your audience decide that for themselves? Your ideas will definitely lead them badly astray.
posted by Uncle Normie at 4:47 AM
posted by Creditwrench @ 5:29 PM
![](http://www.ftc.gov/images/hpbuttons/hot_credit_reports.gif")
<< Home