Jump to content

No response to first DV request


Recommended Posts

I sent a request for DV to a collection agency called UCB, working on behalf of Citibank, using the boiler plate DV letter found on the site. The return receipt from that request is dated 30 days ago today, and I received no response whatsoever. I have looked all through the site for a follow up letter to request removal of the listing from my credit report and threatening litigation in small claims court if it is not removed, but I can't find anything. Can someone either point me in the right direction or post a sample second letter? Help would be greatly appreciated! I feel like the utter lack of any response by the collection agency is a pretty good step in the right direction, and I would like to slam dunk this one.

Thanks, y'all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the utter lack of any response by the collection agency is a pretty good step in the right direction, and I would like to slam dunk this one.

Sorry...that might not be the case. Legally, all a CA needs to do is mark their tradeline on your credit reports "in dispute" and then they can take as long as they like to provide you with validation. Since they're required to go back to the OC for documentation, it might actually be months.

If they don't mark the account "in dispute", then you could send a letter to the CRAs stating that you've tried to verify, and they haven't responded. IMHO, you should wait about 60 days for that.

And, if the account is still owned by the OC, its possible the CA will just hand it back to them, and another CA will be contacting you shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your goal with this account? Do you actually have a delinquent Citi account? I hope you did some reseach before sending that first DV. Citi seems to be the creditor that comes up again and again with serious unpleasantness when they get DV'ed. Yes, the DV makes them prove the debt is yours, but if you do actually have a delinquent Citi account, your next contact might be a summons. It seems to go something like this:

-Citi places an account with a CA

-CA sends a dunning letter to debtor

-debtor send a DV

-CA contacts Citi to get proof of debt

-Citi recalls the account and sends to a lawyer for litigation

I hope this doesn't happen to you. All creditors have different collection policies. There is no universal plan of action when dealing with creditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citi seems to be the creditor that comes up again and again with serious unpleasantness when they get DV'ed. Yes, the DV makes them prove the debt is yours, but if you do actually have a delinquent Citi account, your next contact might be a summons.

Sorry, no, we have no evidence this is true. It's come up before. As near as I can tell, this "fact" was first brought to life by a "debt fixer" who was trolling this board for suckers over the last year. He actually has contract with Citi to bring "settlements" to them. Of course he would claim that Citi's would sue upon DV. I don't think so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's see what happens. Here we have a situation that can prove or disprove the point about Citi suing upon receiving a DV (anecdotally, anyway). I Know there are folks reading this board who have had dealings with Citi. I wish they would speak up and confirm or negate this question about Citi suing out of the gate.

threecurl, keep us informed about the situation.

And, by the way, I have talked with the "debt fixer" willingtocope mentioned. He claims to have no contract with Citi. He actually speaks rather vehemently against Citi, not that speaking against someone is any evidence that they are not as thick as thieves. I haven't tossed a cent his way, and he has spent time helping me devise a plan of action with my own settlements.

Does the 1-2 punch really have any effect when the account is still owned by the OC? The CA will have no problem validating...unless the OC can't manage to keep records, which I suppose does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since his firm has $1.3 million in annual sales with only 15 employees, they are getting their money somewhere. If you read his website, they constantly talk about how they negotiate with Citi. If this company is making millions off of Citi, why would they hate them?

He has a good business model. He fits the legal definition of debt collector, but he manages to convince people he is doing them a favor, while he is actually running a CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Sorry...that might not be the case. Legally, all a CA needs to do is mark their tradeline on your credit reports "in dispute" and then they can take as long as they like to provide you with validation. Since they're required to go back to the OC for documentation, it might actually be months.

If they don't mark the account "in dispute", then you could send a letter to the CRAs stating that you've tried to verify, and they haven't responded. IMHO, you should wait about 60 days for that.

And, if the account is still owned by the OC, its possible the CA will just hand it back to them, and another CA will be contacting you shortly.

What happens if this validation recieves no response and the collection agaency or original creditor does NOT mark the account in dispute. What can we do??? What steps should we then take??? The CRA has labled this account as verified but how??? There's no response to my validation request. Is there a follow up letter for deletion or what should we do now???

Thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens if this validation recieves no response and the collection agaency or original creditor does NOT mark the account in dispute. What can we do??? What steps should we then take??? The CRA has labled this account as verified but how??? There's no response to my validation request. Is there a follow up letter for deletion or what should we do now???

Thanks in advance

Do a search for the "1-2 punch"...and MOV (method of verification).

Note that if you didn't dispute with the OC (which you don't with the standard DV letter), the OC doesn't have to say "in dispute". If you dispute with the CA, then yes, they should mark it "in dispute" or disappear from your reports, which is what the 1-2 punch is intended to force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.