Collection "on hold" letter in response to validation.

[daxbr]

I have been sending validation letters since the middle of last year. Pretty uneventful so far, as I only three CAs replied by sending copies of accounts statements.

However this week I received two replies to my standard validation letter that are out of the ordinary. I am advised that my validation notice was received and my account is placed "on hold" until CA receives requested information from OC. I am also advised the request may "take up to or exceed 30 days".

Regardless of their assurances that their collection efforts are "on hold", I received a phone call from them today that I dutifully recorded.

Is this a violation? How can I use it later?

[antiquedave]

If you only get the one call they can take the stance that it was an honest mistake and depending on your courts might be able to fly with it,

but FDCPA only requires ONE violation to prevail on

It's nicer if there are more, sit back and see what they do over the next 30 days, they may just pass it on to the next collector rather than answer, if they continue to call (or send collection letters) during the validation period you'll have a good FDCPA case to pursue and even if this was the only call I'd still use it against them, esepcially as a cross claim against the collector.

[daxbr]

Originally Posted by antiquedave

If you only get the one call they can take the stance that it was an honest mistake and depending on your courts might be able to fly with it,

but FDCPA only requires ONE violation to prevail on

It's nicer if there are more, sit back and see what they do over the next 30 days, they may just pass it on to the next collector rather than answer, if they continue to call (or send collection letters) during the validation period you'll have a good FDCPA case to pursue and even if this was the only call I'd still use it against them, esepcially as a cross claim against the collector.

Thanks a lot for your reply. What is the purpose of this letter if it does not release them from 30 days rule?

[antiquedave]

I received one letter like that last year, I just considered it to be notice that they got my dunning letter and were ceasing collection until they could respond, and then I never heard from that one again.

sometimes it is what it is,

but they can say it is part of their internal protocol, that they send that letter, move your account over to a non collection status, update their internal call lists to not call, etc etc, then if you sue on that single call they can pull out their protocols and say we are sorry judge, one of our collectors didn't refresh their list here is our procedures to insure internal compliance etc etc.

[BV80]

Originally Posted by daxbr

I have been sending validation letters since the middle of last year. Pretty uneventful so far, as I only three CAs replied by sending copies of accounts statements.

However this week I received two replies to my standard validation letter that are out of the ordinary. I am advised that my validation notice was received and my account is placed "on hold" until CA receives requested information from OC. I am also advised the request may "take up to or exceed 30 days".

Regardless of their assurances that their collection efforts are "on hold", I received a phone call from them today that I dutifully recorded.

Is this a violation? How can I use it later?

Did you send your DV request within 30 days of their first communication with you?

[daxbr]

Yes, certified letter. Returned receipt came back signed.

[Happybluesky]

Related question.

During 30 day period after initial collection letter, but before DV letter received by CA, would a second dunning letter be an FDCPA violation? I would think so, but not sure.

Might there be exceptions, such as if the second letter was an offer to settle?