This is a blatant misrepresentation to keep one from exposing the truth. The Judge is in most cases using the words VALIDATION and VERIFICATION interchangeably, but they are very different in their meanings.
The Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo case upheld a very minimum standard for Verification. But, one should not be sending a "Verification" letter to collectors. Verification is what credit bureaus do. One merely sends collectors "Validation" letters. Though it may seem that verification and validation are the same thing, they are NOT! Collectors love to use the word interchangeably but we need to stand firm on this. Validation is the Proof. Verification according to the Chaudhry decision, is making sure they have the right person. They only have to provide one with the Original creditor name, account number, dates, amount owed to supposedly prove that they are attempting to collect from the correct person. They claim that they don't have to provide detailed records. They may get away with that explanation during the dispute process, and they might get away with it in court, but not if one knows more about Verification and Validation.
By going through the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) one will find it states that EVERY DEBT must be validated within 30 days.
The best way to explain how one can beat these firms, is to bring legal resources into the argument. Start with defining the two words by looking through many different legal dictionaries that would have some standing in court. Build a case against the collector through the dispute process so that one has a folder with a documented paper trail. That way, when we've had enough, that folder has all the ammunition needed to sue, or to build a defense case if they take you to court first. Hopefully, there won't have to be any litigation and one can get rid of them by showing them how they will fail if it goes to court.
Validation according to Black's Law Dictionary is "Assessing an action to determine it is complete, correct, implemented and delivering the correct outcome." Here's the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "Validate": "to check or prove the validity or accuracy of something" with "Validation" being a derivative of the word "Validate." Now, did you notice that it means to "PROVE" the accuracy? This is important. My favorite definition that is very clear comes from Merriam-Webster, which says "to show the existence or truth of, by evidence." Remember this while reading the definition of "Verify."
Verification according to Black's Law Dictionary is "... averment that the party pleading is ready to establish the truth of what he has set forth." Also, it goes on to say, "The examination of a writing for the purpose of ascertaining its truth; or a certificate or affidavit that it is true." Now, it also gives some case law and one will see how these collectors fall short. The court said, "Confirmation of the correctness, truth, or authenticity of a pleading, account, or other paper, by an affidavit, oath, or deposition." McDonald v. Rosengarten, 134 111. 126, 25 N. E. ; and Summerfield v. Phoenix Assur. Co. (C. C-) 65 Fed. 296; and Patterson v. Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, 40 N.Y. Supp. 581.
Did you catch what these definitions are saying? Its saying that "Validation" is the documented proof. Its not just "Yeah, we have the right person and here's what is owed and who the original creditor is that the debt was incurred with." Oh, no. Not even close! Validation is the PROOF!!! Don't forget that. One demands validation and proof. Not just hearsay, which is what they give for every request. Hang onto this stuff. It is powerful and important.
But I'm not done destroying their claim of "verification" yet. Notice how not just in the definition, but in the supporting case law, that "verification" is them attesting to or certifying or confirming that their claims are true and they can prove it in court? That's what verification is. It is swearing under oath that one can prove the claim(s). I'm going to break this down even more. When in court, who can testify as a witness? The answer is, a person with FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE! They saw something for themselves, they had the conversation, they were a party to whatever situation, etc. If they do not have first-hand knowledge and try to testify that they heard that the defendant told the other person something or the company claimed that the defendant ran up the debt---STOP RIGHT THERE! That's HEARSAY and not allowed in court. Its not evidence of squat!
Oh but there's so much more regarding verification. A 3rd party collector CANNOT themselves verify any alleged debt. Why? Look at the last couple of paragraphs above. They were not on the original contract. They were not a party to the original transaction. They were not personally involved from the get-go nor were they employees of the original creditor nor did they ever personally handle the alleged account when it was with the original creditor. All they can provide is "Hearsay." Now let's look at what the FDCPA says about verification. I'm tying this all together and one will see very soon how to whip them into order.
The FDCPA regarding "Verification" and "Validation" of debts is found in 1692g. I'm going to show how they do not verify nor validate when demanding validation. It is found in (b) of 1692g. Here's a portion of that which is very important. It says, "...the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, AND a copy of such verification or judgment or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."
I capitalized the "AND" for emphasis. They have to send a copy of the verification. What is verification again? It is swearing under oath that they can provide the proof. How many times has one received a response from a 3rd party collector that has the name of the original creditor, amount of debt, relevant dates, etc. accompanied by a notarized statement from the original creditor "verifying" that they have the proof and are willing and able to testify with first-hand knowledge that the 3rd party's claim is valid? I'm willing to bet that 99.99% will say "NEVER!!"
They don't send a statement from the original creditor, sworn under oath, by someone authorized, willing and able to testify in court. That means, they never truly verify the alleged debt. When they send copies of statements, computer printouts, letters claiming they consulted with the original creditor or checked their records, they send the name, address, amount, etc., but no notarized statement from the original creditor, remember this: They have not validated, they have not verified, they have failed.
So they can throw the Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo case around all they want. They can throw other case law like Graziano v. Harrison claiming that computer printouts are sufficient. But, if they lack true verification, a notarized statement by a qualified representative of the original creditor that they attest to the validity of the alleged debt and will testify as much with the documentation, in court, they have failed at validation. They have failed at verification. They have not qualified their claim to allow them to resume or continue collection activity in accordance with the FDCPA.
That's how one shoots down their arguments. That's how to take it to them in the disputes and lawsuits, whether the lawsuit was initiated by them or you. That's how to win!