aimlessbloom

Confused about untimely DV and disputes with CRA'S

Recommended Posts

This is my first post but I have been reading here for a while. I hope you can help me figure a few things that are confusing me.

I started with (untimely) DV to 6 CA listed on my husbands report. And also online disputes with the 3 CRA.

Now I'm reading that the CA don't have to respond because I'm out of the 30 day window????? I have been checking my credit report to see if it has been updated to show a dispute and some have but I don't know if this was done by the CA or the CRA'S. How can I tell?

I have received one response so far from BC Services with just a statement on their letterhead. But they have addressed it to me and my husband ( I only disputed my husbands for now) and listed my debts with his on the same statement. Also, They updated my husband's report and changed the amount that was owed. I have old copy & new one showing the changes. Is this allowed??? It has only been a week since I mailed them and started the dispuite. SO do I send a 2nd DV or wait till the CRA'S are done with their investigation?

One more thing.......

Since I am out of the 30 day DV period I don't understand how any of this is going to help me if they don't even have to respond. How does the dispute with the CRA change this???

Thanks so much for the help,

aimlessbloom

Link to post
Share on other sites

well when you dispute with the CRAs they try to verify the debt with the CAs and there is a good chance of the CA not responding to the CRA and then the CRA will delete it

you can dv anytime, but in most states if it is not within 30 days of a dunning letter then the CA does not have to respond or atleast they are not time barred, but there is a chance they will respond and tell you they dont have proper validation and then they will have to delete it

Link to post
Share on other sites
well when you dispute with the CRAs they try to verify the debt with the CAs and there is a good chance of the CA not responding to the CRA and then the CRA will delete it

you can dv anytime, but in most states if it is not within 30 days of a dunning letter then the CA does not have to respond or atleast they are not time barred, but there is a chance they will respond and tell you they dont have proper validation and then they will have to delete it

Im in washington state where can you find the info for dv time at? Link pls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me what a dunning letter is? And explain the 30 day window that is being referrd to please?

The CAs don't have to validate? Is that when you would start the letters demanding they remove the items as they are in violation?

thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you tell me what a dunning letter is?And explain the 30 day window that is being referrd to please?

Usually the first letter from a CA claiming you owe a debt. This letter specifically states that you have 30 days to respond and give proof that it is not your debt. If you don't respond, it will be assumed that the debt is valid and they will pursue you for it.

The CAs don't have to validate? Is that when you would start the letters demanding they remove the items as they are in violation?

The CAs don't have to validate if you fail to respond to the initial dunning letter and send them a seperate Debt Validation letter. This is the one they are not required to respond to. There are still no violations incurred at this point. If you Dispute and they don't respond after the 30 days then the violations begin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in NC and would like to know if NC is a state where you can DV anytime. I have gone to my state statutes and tried to find this, but they are a little on the confusing side. The information regarding credit is not all in one place. I know that the State of Texas allows consumers the right to DV anytime, so I'm hoping that NC might also. Anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Usually the first letter from a CA claiming you owe a debt. This letter specifically states that you have 30 days to respond and give proof that it is not your debt. If you don't respond, it will be assumed that the debt is valid and they will pursue you for it.

The CAs don't have to validate if you fail to respond to the initial dunning letter and send them a seperate Debt Validation letter. This is the one they are not required to respond to. There are still no violations incurred at this point. If you Dispute and they don't respond after the 30 days then the violations begin.

Actually there are mixed opinions on this, I'd like someone to present facts that substantiated the side of of the claim that thinks they never have to validate a debt if past the 30 days...

Judges can even and will decide either way on this, I've read enough case law to know that.

See if this were true CA's could just lie and say they sent the initial letter (even if the never did) every time. My opinion on this is that a CA needs to prove that you owe the debt by validation and verification, otherwise they could simply print up counterfeit debts all day long and hold peoples reports hostage, na ... don't think so, many judges agree too. The initial 30 days means they need to not report if validation is requested, it doesn't mean after 30 days validation is entirely out of the question and you've lost all rights to make them prove they have legal right to collect on the debt.

Again if anyone has specific case law, FTC/state facts ect. We'd be happy to hear them out otherwise don't believe the hype.

I see lots of so called experts post things and confuse those with less time or experience at this.

Do your own homework people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three laws we are dealing with here. The first is the FCRA, which deals with credit reporting. Anyone who reports to your CR is responsible for following this law. That is the law that applies when you file a dispute with the CRA. When you file this dispute, the furnisher has 30 days to respond to the investigation, and send the results to the CRA.

FDCPA

The second law here is the FDCPA. That law applies only to the CA (although there are some special cases where it applies to creditors) and that is what validation pertains to. When a CA contacts you for the first time, you get 30 days to dispute a debt. If you fail to dispute that debt within 30 days, they do not have to respond. This claim comes from this part of the FDCPA:

(B) 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.

That is why sending DV within the 30 day window is so important. If there are any court decisions that contradict this, I am not aware of them.

That would seem to mean that DV after the 30 days is a waste of time, but it isn't, and I will explain. Although a CA does not have to respond to an untimely DV, if they DO choose to respond, the rest of the FDCPA still applies. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute. Congress responded to abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors by enacting a comprehensive, detailed, remedial scheme that imposes civil liability on debt collectors who engage in a range of prohibited conduct, and in establishing this prohibited conduct, Congress established a core of liability that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in any harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, making any false, deceptive, or misleading representation, and using unfair or unconscionable means to collect any debt. What this means is that a CA cannot make false or misleading statements if they DO choose to respond to your DV letter. That is how you use the FDCPA against a CA if your DV is untimely.

Furthermore, the CA does not even have to prove that you got the 30 day notice, or that you get the initial communication. All they have to do is testify that they sent it. For that reason, many CAs use this to dodge the validation requirement, by claiming that they sent the letter months ago.

State Law

The third law we are dealing with is state law. Your state has numerous laws which are different in each state. In a few states, the CA must respond to any DV, regardless of timing. This is the exception, though. most states follow the federal model. I know Texas is one that allows DV any time, but I do not know which others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert but I always send a DV regarless of time. At the very least it show a goodwill effort on my part to get the debt resolved should a suit arise. Having a paper trail can never hurt. I've usually had to send 2-3 letters to each CA and/or OC to get them to move. I've only received one response back after sending at least 15 letters.

I've gotten TLs deleted by sending DVs asking for license verification, stating the SOL or requesting a a copy of the notice for a deficiency balance on a repo. So, it can be beneficial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A collection agency is reporting to the big 3 and its killing your score. You don't think the account is even yours to begin with. You've never received a dunning letter. You send DV to the CA and they don't respond. You send again, still nothing. Mean while months go by and this innaccurate information is still on your report.

And this is ok? The CA has an obligation to furnish accurate information to the CRA. The consumer is sending letters to the CA stating that they are reporting innaccurate information, and they ignore them. And this is okay?

Eddie

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are three laws we are dealing with here. The first is the FCRA, which deals with credit reporting. Anyone who reports to your CR is responsible for following this law. That is the law that applies when you file a dispute with the CRA. When you file this dispute, the furnisher has 30 days to respond to the investigation, and send the results to the CRA.

FDCPA

The second law here is the FDCPA. That law applies only to the CA (although there are some special cases where it applies to creditors) and that is what validation pertains to. When a CA contacts you for the first time, you get 30 days to dispute a debt. If you fail to dispute that debt within 30 days, they do not have to respond. This claim comes from this part of the FDCPA:

That is why sending DV within the 30 day window is so important. If there are any court decisions that contradict this, I am not aware of them.

That would seem to mean that DV after the 30 days is a waste of time, but it isn't, and I will explain. Although a CA does not have to respond to an untimely DV, if they DO choose to respond, the rest of the FDCPA still applies. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute. Congress responded to abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors by enacting a comprehensive, detailed, remedial scheme that imposes civil liability on debt collectors who engage in a range of prohibited conduct, and in establishing this prohibited conduct, Congress established a core of liability that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in any harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, making any false, deceptive, or misleading representation, and using unfair or unconscionable means to collect any debt. What this means is that a CA cannot make false or misleading statements if they DO choose to respond to your DV letter. That is how you use the FDCPA against a CA if your DV is untimely.

Furthermore, the CA does not even have to prove that you got the 30 day notice, or that you get the initial communication. All they have to do is testify that they sent it. For that reason, many CAs use this to dodge the validation requirement, by claiming that they sent the letter months ago.

State Law

The third law we are dealing with is state law. Your state has numerous laws which are different in each state. In a few states, the CA must respond to any DV, regardless of timing. This is the exception, though. most states follow the federal model. I know Texas is one that allows DV any time, but I do not know which others.

dive,

Where in there does it say or does the FTC say that after the initial 30 day period the agency does not have to respond or prove that the debt belongs to or is owed by the consumer?

Again, the way it reads to me is that if you respond with in the initial 30 days of notice with a request for validation that the CA has to cease collection activity, or provide validation, no where in there does it imply (in my comprehension) that after the initial 30 day period the agency has free reign to do as they please and never need to prove that they are entitled to legally collect on the debt in question.

In short the intended purpose as I understand it;

- its a window to keep your report clean if the CA follows the rules, but no where in there does it say or indicate that after the 30 days you are SOL, and the CA can tell you to pound sand. -

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore;

where the Texas law differs is that it means that even if you miss the initial 30 days and request validation they must cease at the point they receive the request. (obviously even if after the initial federal 30 day rule law)

Them being bound to cease all collection activity is a completely seperate issue from being bound by federal & state law that they must legally prove they are entitled to collect on the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dive,

Where in there does it say or does the FTC say that after the initial 30 day period the agency does not have to respond or prove that the debt belongs to or is owed by the consumer?

Again, the way it reads to me is that if you respond with in the initial 30 days of notice with a request for validation that the CA has to cease collection activity, or provide validation, no where in there does it imply (in my comprehension) that after the initial 30 day period the agency has free reign to do as they please and never need to prove that they are entitled to legally collect on the debt in question.

In short the intended purpose as I understand it;

- its a window to keep your report clean if the CA follows the rules, but no where in there does it say or indicate that after the 30 days you are SOL, and the CA can tell you to pound sand. -

The more times I post in a row, the more believable I am....

It does not matter what the FTC says, it is what the courts say. What the law says is that if they get a dispute from you within the 30 days, they must cease collection UNTIL they send validation. If you are outside the 30 days, they do not have to cease collection. Therefore, if they choose to ignore your DV request and continue collecting, you have no recourse, as long as they do not violate other portions of the FDCPA.

The law is plain:

(B)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.

If you do not notify the DC that you dispute with the debt collector in writing within the 30 day period as described, then they do not have to cease collecting.

Where does it say otherwise? You say you have court cases proving your position, so where are they? I have made my case. Where is yours?

See:

Trull v. G.C. Servs. Limited P’ship, 961 F. Supp. 1199 (N.D. Ill. 1997). "Debt collector must only cease collection activity if debtor disputes the debt or requests creditor’s name and address during the validation period, and then only until it sends a verification to the debtor."

Also see:

Jang v. A.M. Miller & Assocs., 122 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 1997).

Levin v. Kluever & Platt, L.L.C., 2003 WL 22757763 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2003).

Ditty v. CheckRite, Ltd., 973 F. Supp. 1320 (D. Utah 1997)

Ozkaya v. Telecheck Servs., Inc., 982 F. Supp. 578 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

There are many others, but you get the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dive,

As far as ceasing collection activity, once again here is another way can I explain this point, as many people discern that the 30 day rule is in place to afford consumers an opportunity to contest a debt before it gets reported and adversely affects their good credit rating, after that the CA can report as they please and ... can also be held liable as well if they aren't legally entitled to collect on the debt. - thats on them if they want to come here and read that they can simply ignore any and all DV's and requests for verification after the 30 days. They can get sued too ...

That is not the question.

The question is - if an agency intends to collect on a debt, they must be legally entitled to collect on the debt right?

If they refuse to provide any type of validation or verification timely or otherwise, - they are begging to be sued, or playing on peoples stupidity or relying on bad information they read on a message forum to save them when the day arrives to go to court.

Has anyone never read any case law where a consumer wins a suit against a collection agency that reported bad information of a debt they were not responsible for?

Many of agencies have been sued for attempting to collection on unverified debts, I'm fairly sure we can easily go dig up more than a few or so. I'll go through my bookmarks & I’ll post some links on this later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again- If a person sued a CA for not providing validation in response to an untimely DV, what cause of action would they have? What law would they sue under? What case law allows this? You are making an assertion and backing it up with vague statements and links to web pages. None of that will fly in court.

I can't go into court and say "This guy on the internet said..." The judge isn't buying it.

You want FTC opinions? (Even though they carry little weight in court) Here:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/berger.htm

We interpret the "thirty-day period" as a period within which consumers must dispute their debts in writing in order to avail themselves of their Section 809(B) rights, but not as a "grace" period.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again,

Same argument right back at you, (even though I came up with it initially) name an agency that will be able to go into court and say that "I didn't need to provide any proof to the consumer that I/we have legal grounds to collect on this debt because the guy on the Internet said I didn't need to if it wasn't a timely request"

Your missing the obvious here, I've said time and time again, if an agency chooses not to respond to a request for validation or proof of the debt then so be it, thats on them, it's not going to save them in court, nothing vague at all about that

Anyone can be as stubborn as they want to, as to that point.

By the way that FTC opinion letter written to a debt collector does not specifically address the debate we're having here, IMO.

I think we're crossing our wires, I asked a specific question above;

The question is - if an agency intends to collect on a debt, they must be legally entitled to collect on the debt right?

If they refuse to provide any type of validation or verification timely or otherwise, - they are begging to be sued, or playing on peoples stupidity or relying on bad information they read on a message forum to save them when the day arrives to go to court.

So

Remember I'm not personally challenging you.

I'm looking to make sure others, nOObs and vets alike will not give up based on limited info, opinions or things taken out of context. (I'm sure many can read between the lines on that fact)

If I had I wouldn't have perfect reports across the board, I wouldn't be a landlord and own 3 homes, instead I be sitting with my 20+ derogs I had a few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the CA says:

The dispute was not timely, and therefore the continued collection of this debt is not a violation of 1692g. See the above court cases and authorities. CA moves for summary dismissal for lack of a cause of action.

Since you have not given ONE case, or ONE statute that substantiates your position that a valid cause of action accrues if a CA continues collection efforts after receiving, but not responding to, a DV that was sent outside of the 30 day validation period, the CA would have this case dismissed.

The Plaintiff would then be on the hook for the legal fees of the CA. (1692k(a)(3))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we have our wires crossed, we're talking about apples and oranges, obviously not the same thing.

For example;

So we arrive in court, and we have a notarized letter from the original creditor, stating the debt should not have been in collections and has been paid & settled in full.

I provide the court with copies that I did engage in due diligences to make every attempt to resolve the issue prior to resorting to the courts, including the letter I had previously sent with request for validation to NCO for a debt which we learned they reported only after reviewing the credit report, NCO contests that it was outside the 30 days, judge doesn't care, they NEVER sent notice in the first place.

Judge rules in my (in this case a family members favor) At the time we requested validation we didn't have the letter from the OC, but since the CA choose to ignore the request for a debt they obviously really shouldn't of been attempting to collect on in the first place, they put themselves at great risk by not responding.

I think this is where I hope folks will be able to as I said read between the lines, and send their letters including their request for validation even if after the initial 30 days. DONE IT MANY TIMES With friends and family and had them respond long past & outside the 30 days.

Maybe the CA shouldn't of thought it was OK to ignore the request because 30 days had passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A collection agency is reporting to the big 3 and its killing your score. You don't think the account is even yours to begin with. You've never received a dunning letter. You send DV to the CA and they don't respond. You send again, still nothing. Mean while months go by and this innaccurate information is still on your report.

And this is ok? The CA has an obligation to furnish accurate information to the CRA. The consumer is sending letters to the CA stating that they are reporting innaccurate information, and they ignore them. And this is okay?

Eddie

IMO;

They violated FDCPA, Section 809 – Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] plaintiff was not allowed time to validate the debt prior to it being reported to the credit bureaus, because said agency never sent them any notice of the debt prior to reporting it to the credit reporting agencies.

Many times court is a crap shoot at best so obviously a judge would have to use his/her discretion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sultan..you also have to remember , being in cali, we have protections not afforded to residents in other states...for example, the rfdcpa requires validation at any time, not just within the 30 day window....thats why we would get it here but residents of other states wouldnt....

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