Is Repeating Initial Information Provided, Considered A Validation Response

Is Repeating Initial Information Provided, Considered A Validation Response

While courts are divided as to what constitutes proper validation, they certainly have not ruled that validation may be accomplished by merely repeating the information required by 1692g(a).

In Chaudhry (see Myth #3), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that verifying a debt "involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." However, documentation had been provided by the debt collector in that case.

In reality, the answer is no. Allowing a debt collector to validate a debt by merely repeating the information in its initial communication would be the same as allowing the collector to say "because I say so." It would be contrary to the language in 1692g(b) and would render that subsection meaningless.