Jump to content

WAY pass the 30 day time to respond. Too late to DV?


Recommended Posts

Greetings,

After avoiding my situation for far too long, I now have two law firms attempting to collect on past debts.

I am going to send them both letters of dispute tomorrow but had one question. Everything I have read refers to a consumers right to request validation within 30 days of being notified.

I am several months past that 30 day limit. Is it too late for me to request validation from the attorney?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. You can DV anytime. But the 30 day thing gives you more rights. That's all.

Just remember that by submitting your request outside the 30 day window, the CA is under no obliation whatsoever. So, don't be surprised if they never answer, yet continue collection activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember that by submitting your request outside the 30 day window, the CA is under no obliation whatsoever. So, don't be surprised if they never answer, yet continue collection activity.

Wait, isn't that a violation? Even in an untimely DV, aren't the CA's required to cease collection activity until the debt is validated? And, mark the item in dispute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in an untimely DV, aren't the CA's required to cease collection activity until the debt is validated?

That would tend to eliminate the need to have a 30 day request period. No, the FDCPA allows you 30 days to request a timely DV; after that, the CA is not obligated in respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would tend to eliminate the need to have a 30 day request period. No, the FDCPA allows you 30 days to request a timely DV; after that, the CA is not obligated in respond.

Okay, maybe I am missing something here. They don't have to respond to you, but if they verify with the CRA's without validating (even if it's untimely) - then THAT is a violation?

There is so much conflicting info here...:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Groan* (kicking myself for not dealing with this sooner!)

Assuming at the very least, sending them the DV will show that I tried to communicate with them if they take me to court.

Just when I think I am going in the right direction it feels like one step forward, two steps back (no one to blame but myself though).

As always, thanks for the input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, maybe I am missing something here. They don't have to respond to you, but if they verify with the CRA's without validating (even if it's untimely) - then THAT is a violation?

There is so much conflicting info here...:confused:

If you're referring to the 1-2 punch then yes.

Taken from the PRIMER:

When the green cards come back, immediately request reinvestigation from the CRA. This does one of three things (if you are dealing with a CA):

1 They don’t validate, and they don’t reply to the CRA. Deletion. You win.

2 They don’t validate, they verify with CRA. Violation. Proceed to next step.

3 They validate accurately, either with or without verifying to the CRA. Very rare. Only happened once so far for me. They just don’t keep good enough records. You negotiate pay for delete in this case. If they won’t PFD, then let it lie. Don’t waste your money getting “settled in full” or other nonsense. It empties your bank account and trashes your credit.

There is no time limit for the CA to reply to your letter. They can simply do nothing, and are not in violation. That is why requesting reinvestigation through the CRA is important. It forces the CA to either violate by re-reporting an invalid tradeline, or allow deletion. Get more copies of at least one report that has been re-reported and save it. You will need it later.

http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276514&highlight=primer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. It's my own fault for burying my head in the sand for so long! I sent letters disputing the debt off to the law firms so now all I can do is just sit back and wait.

If anything, maybe this thread will be another reminder to others to take action immediately!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what options are there when it comes to disputing a debt after the 30 day timeframe??

Hi Fred,

That's exactly what I am trying to figure out! From what I can gather so far, there aren't many options.

As I am currently getting letters from attornies I figured it would be best to at least have proof of some sort of dialogue in case I get sued. Apparantly though, once you've missed the intitial 30 day window, they are under no obligation to provide you with anything.

Happy happy, joy joy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I did a little bit more research after posting my question. Apparently, you can go about it this way...

1) Send the DV out. Wait for proof they received it.

2) Wait 5 more days and dispute with the CRA's.

3) If the company verifies with the CRA's and didn't with you then you have a violation to use against them. If they don't verify with the CRA's or you, then it will have to be removed at the end of 30 days.

However, if they respond to your DV AND verify with the CRA's I'm not sure what to do after that.

Experts, does this sound right? if not, let me know and I'll correct any misleadings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fred,

It is my understanding that if you do not DV within the 30 day limit that has been legally set for consumer protection, the CA is no longer under obligation to respond (this is based on what I have been told on this board as well as similar credit boards). Any links to info that proves otherwise?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... just to clarify here :-)

Assume it's past 30 days and I send a DV letter to a CA and they don't reply (they don't have to). *But* about the same time I dispute with the CRAs. If the CA validates with the CRA and still doesn't send me a DV, is that a violation?

And to throw another curveball, what if in response to the DV, the CA sends you a letter saying "It's been too long, we don't have to validate. Please pay up." and validates with the CRAs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... just to clarify here :-)

Assume it's past 30 days and I send a DV letter to a CA and they don't reply (they don't have to). *But* about the same time I dispute with the CRAs. If the CA validates with the CRA and still doesn't send me a DV, is that a violation?

And to throw another curveball, what if in response to the DV, the CA sends you a letter saying "It's been too long, we don't have to validate. Please pay up." and validates with the CRAs?

Ok, I've been looking and looking and I can't get an answer to the very question you ask.

What makes it a violation for the CA's to not provide debt validation to me but yet verify to the CRA's?

I'm not sure. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's some confusion between consumer rights under the FDCPA and versus those under the FCRA. The FDCPA is the law that we're using when we send out DV letters. It's also the law that states that CA's only have to respond within that initial 30 day window.

The FCRA, however addresses things like the requirement to add the "consumer disputes" notice to your CR, the lawful purposes a CR can be pulled, etc. The FCRA has nothing to do with debts and doesn't (directly) regulate those who attempt to collect debts. It does regulate, however, people who add info to your file.

Having said that... there is no such thing as an initial 30-day window in the FCRA. You have the option of challenging the veracity of information with the information furnisher (the CA/JDB, for example) with no time restrictions.

FCRA § 623(8)(E):

DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE- After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate.

The above makes reference to § 611(a)(1) when defining how long a information furnisher has to respond to your request for an investigate. They have 30 days:

(A) In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.

However... Carpet bombing baddies with form letters will not legally trigger the required investigation. If the CA "reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant" they are free to ignore your request for investigation (though they do have to tell you they determined your request to be frivolous).

FCRA § 623(8)(F):

FRIVOLOUS OR IRRELEVANT DISPUTE-

(i) IN GENERAL- This paragraph shall not apply if the person receiving a notice of a dispute from a consumer reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, including--

(I) by reason of the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information; or

(II) the submission by a consumer of a dispute that is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or for the consumer, either directly to the person or through a consumer reporting agency under subsection (B), with respect to which the person has already performed the person's duties under this paragraph or subsection (B), as applicable.

(ii) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION- Upon making any determination under clause (i) that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, the person shall notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 business days after making such determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the person.

(iii) CONTENTS OF NOTICE- A notice under clause (ii) shall include--

(I) the reasons for the determination under clause (i); and

(II) identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.

If you send them a dispute that can't reasonably be considered frivolous and they don't bother to investigate or reply with some lame a$$ account statement, it's a violation of the FCRA (Advance to Go and collect $1000). Or, if they entirely ignore your request (even if they think it's pointless), that too is a violation.

That, my friends, is my interpretation of the law. But I'm still just getting the hang of this. Does anyone read the law differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...