Jump to content

Need help with reply from ca reguarding DVL response being a computer print out.

Recommended Posts

I sent the CA DVL timely by the way. They sent me a computer print out medical bill. I sent the CA a letter including the Wollman FTC opinion letter. I got the advise and opinion letter from this link http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225508 .note: if this link is not working you will find another link in the link right here for it. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm And if the two links are still not working cut and paste them to your browser. Sometimes they work sometimes they don't.

I don't know where to go from here as I am stuck. Please help me out here. What should I do next? Thank you.

Collection Agency Response.

Regarding your demands as to the type of verification provided, I quote from an analysis by Robbie Thompson, chief compliance officer of the American Collectors Association:

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCP A) does not define "verification". Yet Section 809(a)(4) (or 15 Us.e. 1692g(a)(4)) of the Act requires that "if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt, and a copy of such verification, will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." Thus, the Act places a requirement to provide the consumer with something if the dispute is received in writing within the thirty-day dispute period, but what exactly that something is, however, is unknOlnl. The lack of legislative history, FTC interpretations, and court cases have exacerbated the problem of interpreting what is meant in the FDCP A by "verification. "

According to the legislative history of the FDCP A the verification requirement is fUlfilled "if the debt collector obtained from the creditor a statement which includes an itemization of the amount of the debt, the name of the consumer, a statement that the debt has not been paid, and a statement that the creditor (IJ had either delivered a merchantable product or properly rendered a service " HR. Rep No. 131. 95th Cong., I Sess. 5(1977).

Only a few court cases have addressed-either directly or indirectly-the issue of what sufficient(vfu(fills the verification requirement. In Chaudhrv v Gatlerizzo, 174 F.3d 974 (4 's Cir. 1999), the verification sent upon the consumer's request consisted of a computerized summmy of the bill which included the amount of the debt, and a description and dates of all transactions. The court ruled that this was sufficient verification under the FDCP A. The court noted that "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed: the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt." The Chaudhry court relied heavily on Graziano v. Harrison. 950 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991), where it wasfound that a computer printout that showed the amount of the debts, the services provided, and the dates of service, was sufficient verification.

You are disputing this debt. Until this allegation is put to rest, I will update the credit report entry to reflect the disputed nature of this account.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

David S. Carpenter Vice President


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.