Late DV...what about 1692g(c)..no sol on DVing?

[newsong]

I have (had?) a Macy's acct which has now been turned over (bought?) by Omni Credit Services....any info on them?

ALSO...DV deadline (?) was Feb. 21, I missed it due to my son's wedding and planning of...just forgot . HOWEVER..per 1692g© of the FDCPA can I still DV them? Is there no sol on requesting DV?

I need to pay the debt...I want a little more time...ok a lot more time to get my ducks in a row...i.e. settlement offer, restrictions to endorsement on check, getting the PAID (eventually) off my CR, things like this...

HOWEVER..I'm afraid too if I do DV....Omni will get p.o and send a summons or something like that....

ALSO...sorry if you've read this before...I posted in Debt Settlement and got to thinking it should be here in Collections...at least for now...maybe LATER in "Debt Settlement" !!!!

Thank you........

[bigboyinc]

You can still DV them, it's just that now they don't have to stop collection activity or respond to your DV. To get around this, dispute account with cra's first, if it comes back verified, dv the collection agency then dispute with cra's again. If they dont respond to you but verify this time they are in violation.

[IHateCAs]

To get around this, dispute account with cra's first, if it comes back verified, dv the collection agency then dispute with cra's again. If they dont respond to you but verify this time they are in violation.

Based on what exactly?

[IHateCAs]

. HOWEVER..per 1692g© of the FDCPA can I still DV them? Is there no sol on requesting DV?

1692g© ( I like the fact that you are reading it), means a court can't say you didn't dispute, therefore the debt is valid.

I think it could be argued that 1692g© preempts any account stated claim made by a JDB in court.

[newsong]

Thanks IHATECAs...(by the way...I don't know any CAs personally...but I STRONGLY DISLIKE them too!)

So, per your opinion.... should I then DV, even though the debt is valid (so what..I know that!)..but it will give me more time? They can still proceed though, right?

Also....from a "sticky" or thread or somewhere..I found a website to look and see if Omni is licensed to operate in AZ where I live...their license is "renewing" which means it's still valid..but will expire on 3/31 if not completed by then......Oh pleeeeeeeze God...let it expire....pleeeeeeeze!!

[newsong]

bump

[IHateCAs]

You are misinterpreting what I wrote.

[newsong]

Ok then....explain.............please!

[IHateCAs]

You've lost all of your 1692g( rights.

[divemedic]

Yes and no. If you DV outside of the 30 days, the CA does not have to cease collection until validation is sent. That being said, if the CA does choose to attempt to validate, then they must do so accurately and completely, or they could be in violation of 1962e(2)

[newsong]

I'm finding that 1692g© is all in how a person interprets it...pull up 1692g© in search and you won't believe the posts....it will boil down to how the CA interprets and God forbid if this goes to court...how the judge will interpret it.....unfortunately it seems to be subjective.... HOWEVER..the overwhelming majority in these forum(s) seem to think it's a VALID attempt, one that just might confuse the CA enough that a person (I) might have a fighting chance...besides I'm 20 days late on DVing...not 20 months...not that that would NECESSARILY matter!!!!.........it's all interpretation......just my .02 which I really shouldn't give.......I need EVERY penny to pay this debt off !!!!

Newsong...........

[newsong]

bump

[bigboyinc]

Based on what exactly?

Now maybe i'm a little confused but I thought that if they verified again but had not presented you with a validation of your debt first, they are in violation. I maybe wrong but that is how I thought the processed worked.

[divemedic]

It does not matter HOW the people interpret it- it is how the courts interpret it. The courts have consistently ruled that the consumer has 30 days to dispute the debt, and if the consumer disputes during the 30 day period, the collector shall cease all collection activity until the validation is SENT to the consumer. It is even in the plain wording of the statute. Nowhere in there does it say that a CA must cease collecting after receiving a DV that was sent beyond the 30 days.

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any 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.

All paragraph c does is prevent an "account stated" kind of protection for the consumer. Simply put, a failure to dispute does not constitute an admission of liability.

[kevin3344]

Newsong, send the DV. When I found this board stuff was on my report for years - yes, years - and I still DV'd with success. Stuff I challenged with the CRAs always came back "verified". Now:

NCO - GONE

AFNI - GONE

Utility co. - GONE

Park Dansan -GONE

Cavalry - No response (who cares, I sent C&D and they never got a dime anyway)

So stop splitting hairs with "days". Sending a DV has always worked for me

Now, if you're anywhere NEAR the 30 days, of course send it! I was just giving you my example because I didn't know what a DV was until a couple of years ago.

________

nice tits Cams

Edited September 9, 2011 by kevin3344

[newsong]

You're right Kevin3344....it sure couldn't hurt, right? I've never DV'd before...I'm kinda scared to tell "ya all" the truth. The only reason I would (will?) is to ensure I'm not paying $$$ that isn't mine to pay.....I surely do not want to open up ANOTHER can of worms, along with the can I already opened by getting myself into this mess...UGH!...

SO, I need to decide NOW what I am going to do..the 30 days was up 3 weeks ago...I'm starting to get nervous as to what they're going to do next?!?!? OR.....I might just call Macy's, see if they still have the acct., ask them what the balance is, and then "negogiate" to pay it along with taking the "stuff" of my CR. What do "ya all" think? I don't want to talk to the CA..plus everyone here in these forums say NEVER EVER EVER talk to a CA.

[newsong]

bump

[myscoresawful]

Yes and no. If you DV outside of the 30 days, the CA does not have to cease collection until validation is sent. That being said, if the CA does choose to attempt to validate, then they must do so accurately and completely, or they could be in violation of 1962e(2)

OK, but this is the confusing part, it's why so many people get collections removed from their credit report:

DV the CA, if they can't validate, they have to stop reporting to the 3 CRAs, right? Sure, they don't have to stop calling, and they technically don't have to respond to your DV, but they DO have to stop reporting something to the CRA if they don't have proper validation of the debt, right?

Example, someone misses the initial 30 day letter by some over sight, move, or what ever (after all, they don't send those registered)....the debt truly isn't yours. You STILL have the right to have that validated and removed from your credit report no matter how many days, months or years it is past the initial 30 days notice from the CA.

[bigboyinc]

You are correct, if they cannot validate your debt, they cannot report it to the cra's. Dive is right also, if you dv within the thirty days they have to stop all collection activity. Right below 1692g© there is a statement that basically says that even if you don't dv in the 30 day time frame, it is not to be assumed the debt is yours. That is why you can still dv months and years later.

[direred]

In the 9th circuit (which the OP is in), if the person DVs outside the 30-day window, the CA does not have to provide validation. So says the ruling in Mahon.

The wedding is irrelevant unless it took all of the 30 days.

[divemedic]

You are correct, if they cannot validate your debt, they cannot report it to the cra's. Dive is right also, if you dv within the thirty days they have to stop all collection activity. Right below 1692g© there is a statement that basically says that even if you don't dv in the 30 day time frame, it is not to be assumed the debt is yours. That is why you can still dv months and years later.

Not exactly. Under the FDCPA, you have 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, or you lose that ability in all practicality. There are some things that you need to consider when you DV outside of the 30 day window.

1 Even though the CA does not HAVE to validate, if they attempt to, any statements they make about the debt must not be misleading or incorrect. A CA might respond to your DV, and give you all the rope you need to hang them with.

2 What the FDCPA actually says about not DVing within the 30 days is this:

"The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

All this means is that your failure to dispute is not an admission of liability. (This protects you from Account Stated claims, IMO) That statement does not give you license to DV this debt 3 years down the road. If you do not dispute within the 30 day window, the CA does not have to cease collection activity.

3 There is nothing to prevent a CA from continuing to report a tradeline after receiving a DV, if the DV was sent outside of the 30 day window. This is why disputing with the CRA is so important. Doing so secures you a way to fight under 1681s-2( for failure to investigate.

In short, there is nothing preventing you from sending DV outside of the 30 day window, just understand that threatening a lawsuit at that point is a bluff- if they call you on it, you could wind up paying for their attorney.

[newsong]

bump

[kevin3344]

So really, newsong, it's up to you. There is really no harm in DVing. I have done it with success, as I've mentioned on numerous occasions. It's really the #1 thing in my arsenal right now, and I intend to use it every chance I get.

I'll give you a more recent example. Remember Cavalry, the one who never validated? Well they contacted a local atty who called me. It's been so long since I got a call from a CA I figured I would chat with them a bit, why not. Like 6-7 years ago lol. They said 'it's in regards to an account with Cavalry'. I said, 'Cavalry never validated'. They said, 'we can get that for you'. The next week I received a large yellow envelope in the mail, 20 pages thick. With the original contract, everything, from 7/98. Heck, the SOL in NC is 3 years...they're way over SOL. I almost didn't recognize my handwriting it was so old. I sent back a C&D pointing out the SOL and the FCRA reporting time being up and never heard from them again.

Bottom line is, I will put it in my 3-ring binder like I do all my other validation, just in case a new CA comes calling one day. I will simply say 'really, you don't say? well I've got original copies of that debt and I know it's outside SOL, goodbye'.

Do what you must, but you don't have to look far to see what's worked.

________

Babydolly18

Edited September 9, 2011 by kevin3344

[newsong]

Ok then...3 more questions..sorry

1. Why would a CA validate AFTER the 30 day's with the chance of making a mistake in the validation process and the potential of being fined?

2. IF...a CA does validate after the 30 days and it comes back validated...then what?

3. I need an explaination of 1681s-2(

thank yous!

[bigboyinc]

Not exactly. Under the FDCPA, you have 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, or you lose that ability in all practicality. There are some things that you need to consider when you DV outside of the 30 day window.

1 Even though the CA does not HAVE to validate, if they attempt to, any statements they make about the debt must not be misleading or incorrect. A CA might respond to your DV, and give you all the rope you need to hang them with.

2 What the FDCPA actually says about not DVing within the 30 days is this:

"The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

All this means is that your failure to dispute is not an admission of liability. (This protects you from Account Stated claims, IMO) That statement does not give you license to DV this debt 3 years down the road. If you do not dispute within the 30 day window, the CA does not have to cease collection activity.

3 There is nothing to prevent a CA from continuing to report a tradeline after receiving a DV, if the DV was sent outside of the 30 day window. This is why disputing with the CRA is so important. Doing so secures you a way to fight under 1681s-2( for failure to investigate.

In short, there is nothing preventing you from sending DV outside of the 30 day window, just understand that threatening a lawsuit at that point is a bluff- if they call you on it, you could wind up paying for their attorney.

Thanks dive for providing more clarety. That is why we are all on here to learn, and apply what we learn. Veterans like yourself make things go a little smoother for people like myself.