Settlement offers provided with the validation letter may overshadow the consumer’s validation rights. Courts are not in agreement on this subject and at least one court has held a settlement offer provided with the validation notice overshadowed the validation period. This court found that a validation letter that contained language to suggest that the consumer should call to arrange a settlement to gain the collector’s cooperation circumvented the FDCPA and overshadowed the validation notice. Another court held that a settlement offer that expired before the validation period did not overshadow the validation notice as it did not demand immediate payment nor did it state the consumer has less than thirty days to dispute the debt. One time offers can sometimes be considered false or misleading; especially, if the collector can offer the discount at any time or can offer more of a discount than is presented. One district court determined that successive settlement offers that included end dates were not false or misleading under the FDCPA. The court concluded “a settlement offer that states the proposed discount and the length of the offer, but does not expressly nor implicitly indicate no other offer will be made” does not violate the Act even though more favorable terms in the future are likely.
Many U.S. consumers do not have a credit history or enough record of borrowing to establish a credit score, which is information that helps track the likelihood they will repay their debts and how much is owed to creditors.
One in every 10 adults, or 26 million people, do not have a credit history with one of the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies, according to data released by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau this week.