Debt Validation

[akins503]

What if you don't DV a CA within the 30 day period after they contact you. Is it absolutely necessary to DV them within that time period. I am new to this and think I read somewhere on this board that they have an unlimited amount of time to respond. Is this true?

[stancil1]

It's true unless you are also cover by some state statute. Check to see if your state has a Debt Collection Act in place (ie. Texas has the TDCA) which states that timely or untimely, they have to respond. Also, lookup with the Secreery of State there where you live and see if the CA is even licensed to do business there as a debt collector. The more you use your search feature on this site, the more you'll learn.

[someonesomewhere]

What if you don't DV a CA within the 30 day period after they contact you.

As stancil1 said, state laws might kick in and place more stringent requirements on CAs. Absent that, there is nothing in federal law compelling a CA to do anything with an untimely DV.

Is it absolutely necessary to DV them within that time period.

Under federal law, yes. However, I DVed one TL years later, and the CA responded with validation. I also DVed a couple of OCs before I knew better, and I got deletes. Under law, an OC does not have to respond to a DV.

Short answer is, you really should ALWAYS DV any CA. Not sure if there are any of the old pros who disagree or would add caveats or what ifs, but now would be the time to speak up.

I read somewhere on this board that they have an unlimited amount of time to respond.

Yes, they have an unlimited time to respond, but they must cease all collection activity until they validate. They can take 2 years to validate, but if they persist in their collection efforts during that time then they are in violation. They cannot call, write, file for judgements, or continue reporting the TL on your CRs.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_validation.shtml

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/eBooks/PoorMansClassActionLawsuit.shtml

Also, make sure you keep all correspondence from the CA. In their first letter to you, they must provide what's termed the mini-Miranda. Read § 809(a) of FDCPA. They must include #1 thru #5.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/FDCPA.shtml#809

[bird]

So if I have been served w/ a summons in Texas, I can still dv? Do I dv NCO, the company suing me or MBNA? Does this mean while they validated my debt, the suit would be "on hold"?

[joeman]

So, let me get this right.

If I DV a CA that has had the account for over a year, they can take all the time they want to validate, but in the mean time they must cease reporting that TL to the CRA's ?

...and therin is the violation that you can proceed to write a ITS and then actually file a complaint/summons?

[divemedic]

Not exactly. A DV that is not timely means that a CA does not have to cease collection. If the DV is timely, then the CA must cease all collection activity.

There are many tools at your disposal, even if you cannot use DV. Be creative.

[someonesomewhere]

A DV that is not timely means that a CA does not have to cease collection.

I thought Texas state law required CAs to validate even if outside the 30 day window.

[MrRoper]

So technically if you never sent a DV letter within the original 30 days of first contact they don't have to validate the debt or cease collection activity?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly because I didn't read anything in the FDCPA about debt validation outside the 30 day initial contact period.

Obviously they have no way of knowing whether or not you actually received the original letter unless you made contact with them, but there seems to be a little bit of gray area here.

[merkurfan]

If you DV out side of 30 days they can ignore you and move forward. However, they DO have to mark that you dispute the information on there TL's listed on your CR.

Read the premier, it'll tell you how to 1-2 punch them and likely knock them off your CR.

[someonesomewhere]

Always DV a CA. Even if you're outside the 30 day window, if they validate and they fail to provide adequation, could be ammo to fight 'em.

[jestor1776]

Even if you are past the 30 day period you can still send them a notice that they are not the true holder in due course of the note/credit card agreement etc. and challenge their alleged claim to damages. Because, even though you are past the 30 day period in regard to the FDCPA DV, you can still build your administrative record in the event they try to collect (ie- take you to court). The CA still has to be able to prove they are the proper party to be repaid the money as well as, prove they are the holder of the original note or contract, and also realize that an attorney for the debt collector or CA cannot testify to anything pertaining to you allegedly owing OC or CA money or amount, unless they have first hand personal knowledge of the facts.

FM

[RumorsNGossip]

I'm fairly new to this, but i've found out that you should ALWAYS send a DV, regardless of whether it is after the initial 30 day window. I had an old electric bill that was in my and my roommates name show up on CR a couple of years ago. The bill was dated 5/2002.

I sent a DV request via CMRRR on Friday, and today I got a statement from them showing that they DELETED the CR listing. THIS WAS 5 YEARS OLD!

Often times, all you have to do is challenge the CA's to a game of "PROVE IT" and they will back down if they can't.

Justin