Sign in to follow this  
vader

CA responds to DV, now what.

Recommended Posts

Well, I Dved the CA and I sent the dispute to the CRAs.

The CA responded pretty quick. They sent a letter saying:

"We are attempting to verify your dispute and it would be helpful to have a copy of any documentation you may have that proves your dispute. In the interim, we have requested that the three major consumer credit reporting agencies change the status of this account to "disputed".

Please mail or fax cancelled checks, paid letters, or any other documentation you may have to support your claim."

Ya right I'll send them stuff right away. NOT.

The CRAs have not responded yet. My question is, since the CA said they will tell the CRAs the account is disputed, when the CRAs try to verify my request that the acount is "not mine", will the CRAs just list the account as disputed? It seems like a new tactic for the CAs, tell the CRAs the account is disputed rather than verifing it. Now there is no violation, but they stilll have not verified it.

So if the CRAs list it as disputed, what is the next step?

I'm quessing that I should then send a letter to the CA telling them they have not validated they own the acct and it is mine etc, and as required by the FRCA they must delete the acct.

Is this the correct step?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

((BUMP))

I fully agree...it sounds like they're trying to get away with something. I'd make sure to NOT respond to their request as it MAY buy them some time on your request for validation (someone correct me if I'm wrong and if I am I'm sorry).

At the end of 30 days from the date you sent the last letter of request (CMRRR of course) I'd go ahead and re-send the same debt validation request and note on there that it's your "2nd request" making sure to note the typical things asked for in a debt validation. I'm not sure I'd even aknowledge I received their letter...but that's just me, lol.

You're disputing the debt but only insofar as to figure out for sure that it's yours, the amounts are correct, they have the legal authority to collect, etc...not sure what they think YOU can send them when it's THEM that needs to verify and validate this information. Yah, I'm guessing it's a trick. :roll: Heavens to Betsy if ANYONE makes them WORK for their money!

Someone else more experienced will be along shortly hon. Take care.

Elyse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of the CAs work on percentages. They send out these letters and get a small percent to reply.

I'm not going to send them anything until I see what the CRAs do.

Then I will send a letter that starts like this, " You obvious can't read or you are total idiots, I told you I don't know about the account you are reporting and you respond by asking my to supply info about it..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I got a second letter from them. On one side it says, "we have tried to contact you several times and if you don't respond we are considering sending this acct to an attorney for settlement..."

Then on the other side there is aa account statement that has the acct number, original issuer (MBNA) and acct number, the balance due and a statement that says the acct was purchased by Midland.

Since they sent this after the date they recieved my DV letter, is this a violation of the "collection activity" before validatiing? or will they just claim the acct staement is validation.

I'm thinking my respond should be to send a letter saying they have not verified this acct as requested.

Anyone have any opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Write them back with this:

"The debt collector is not precluded from collecting the debt within the validation period. However, if the debt collector threatens action or demands payment within the validation period (30 days from receipt), there is a violation unless the collector explains that upon receipt of a dispute/ request for validation, collection activity will cease until verification is sent. Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997).

And this:

ยง 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

Tell them you're forwarding the matter to the proper government agencies for further processing. Then file a complaint with the FTC and the Attorney General's Office for the state they are located in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess... These letters for from Midland, or Household, or HFC, or one of the other 17492837 variation this company has on its name. I'm doing the DV thing right now and i have a total of 5 collections that are being handled by these guys. They sent me the same letters. First they want my documentation, then they say that they ahve been trying to contact me, which they haven't... I saved the letters, waited til their 30 days expired, sent a second letter threatening lawsuits and then they finally called last week and tried to tell me that the burden of prove in this dispute is on me!! These guys are dirtbags. Nail 'em and nail 'em good. Thats what i plan to do!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Midland actually tell you in writing that the burdun of proof is on you? If so, that would be great evidance for winning in court.

I just sent out a second letter to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a lot of misinformation. Once again, verification of debt is mostly meant to make sure the debt collector is reaching the right person. If you simply dispute the bill, an itemized statement is all that is needed to verify the debt. The agency does NOT have to provide you with most of the things in these debt verification letters.

Being specific with the dispute is helpful. I worked as a compliance person at an agency and when we got your debt verification letter, we sent the itemized statement and kept on collecting. I recieved things asking for signatures on contracts that the consumer knew didn't exist because there was no original contract creating the debt and there was no signature.

Believe it or not, getting a specific dispute back with information such as proof of payment, etc. is quite helpful. I have seen many bills adjusted due to the fact that the original client misapplied a payment, didn't note something correctly, etc. The original creditor may have no record of your dispute.

If you don't send in something to back up your dispute, all you are going to get is an itemized statement, and that's all they have to send.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight superrev.

We'll just continue to do follow case precedent and refuse to accept itemized printouts as validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, a lot of misinformation. Once again, verification of debt is mostly meant to make sure the debt collector is reaching the right person. If you simply dispute the bill, an itemized statement is all that is needed to verify the debt. The agency does NOT have to provide you with most of the things in these debt verification letters.

We are not talking about verification, we are talking about validation. There is no way an itemized statement is all that is needed. If that were the case, I would just start typing up statements and send them to people and wait for the money to start rolling in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CA properly reported the acount to the CRA as "disputed" and you should make sure they hve done this.

They can ask you to send proof, which they will send to the OC, but I doubt that will help you. Send them a letter reminding them that it is their responsibility as a reporter to validate the debt. That dodesn't mean make out a prima facie legal case, but more than " yeah, they have your name and address at teh OC and they say you owe them, bud." The Wollman letter http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm requires they give you more info than a simple say-so.

Their threat to send it to a lawyer may be actionable. I would consider an account at tel-biz.com, call them and get them to talk, tell them your situation, see if they threaten you. a letter and taped call is dynamite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update....

Midland never responded to my letter and all 3 CRAs have deleted the account because they never responded to the CRAs.

So, DV stategy worked in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this