30 Day Timely.. hypothetical question

[harleygirl]

Remember hypothetical...lol

I receive a letter today from a ca/jdb and I send a dv.

CA/JDB says that letter is not timely because they sent several letters before this.

I included a copy of the letter with the DV.

This is very generic, because I am trying to encourage anyone with ideas or experience to chime in. I have been reading a lot. I am finding that if the CA says they sent you a letter it is their word against yours. Is this the case or would this situation be different?

[debtorshusband]

CA/JDB says that letter is not timely because they sent several letters before this.

I guess I say...So what?

The only "benefit" of a timely DV is that the CA must discontinue all collection activity until validation is supplied to you. Which means that the only "advantage" to the CA if your DV is indeed untimely is that they can continue collection activity: they can call you, send demand letters, and so forth. But you have still disputed the claim.

In this hypothetical situation, I would write to the CA, tell them nicely that they are mistaken, that no such previous demand letters were received, and that I am excercizing my rights under the FDCPA to dispute, demand verification, etc. And that I will not engage in any further discussion or negotiations until such verification is received.

Maybe it's my word against theirs, but so what? It's a stalemate. They can send all the demand letters they want, I'm not budging until they send documentation. Either they provide documentation, file a lawsuit, or go away. If they file a lawsuit, I'm going to demand the documention again, and assert that I asked for it before (in my DV) letter.

DH

[harleygirl]

Great point. I agree.

And thank you for helping me think...lol.

I guess the real question here is, how would this situation apply if someone tried to sue for violations?

[debtorshusband]

I guess the real question here is, how would this situation apply if someone tried to sue for violations?

If you were hoping to sue them, you're probably out of luck. The "he said, she said" aspect probably means you couldn't prove they were violating the FDCPA by continuing collection activity with providing verification. They would just claim your DV was untimely, and you really couldn't prove otherwise.

DH

[harleygirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleygirl

I guess the real question here is, how would this situation apply if someone tried to sue for violations?

If you were hoping to sue them, you're probably out of luck. The "he said, she said" aspect probably means you couldn't prove they were violating the FDCPA by continuing collection activity with providing verification. They would just claim your DV was untimely, and you really couldn't prove otherwise.

See, now this is what is frustrating me. I know from my own experience they will outright lie. How do we ever prove that it was a timely DV?

[TTigggers]

Great response DH.

Also the first dunning letter usually says somewhere on it:

That you have the right in the first 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt or the debt will be considered valid to them

[TTigggers]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleygirl

I guess the real question here is, how would this situation apply if someone tried to sue for violations?

See, now this is what is frustrating me. I know from my own experience they will outright lie. How do we ever prove that it was a timely DV?

If it has the writing on it that I just posted above then without a doubt it is the first dunning letter they sent. Otherwise you are SOL and not the good kind.

The point to fight on if push comes to shove is:

Why would a legitimate business deny to give proof of the debt if it was a valid debt?

[harleygirl]

If it has the writing on it that I just posted above then without a doubt it is the first dunning letter they sent. Otherwise you are SOL and not the good kind.

The point to fight on if push comes to shove is:

Why would a legitimate business deny to give proof of the debt if it was a valid debt?

Thank You Tiggs! Finally a moment of understanding. I see the light!

[debtorshusband]

See, now this is what is frustrating me. I know from my own experience they will outright lie. How do we ever prove that it was a timely DV?

Yes, it would be frustrating if you really wanted to sue. But I don't really get concerned about that; my focus is on dealing with the debt collectors, rather than the credit score aspect or on suing for violations.

As TTigggers has astutely pointed out, the first letter should have the FDCPA required verification notice, spelling out your right to dispute. Conversely, if a dunning letter has that notice, the CA can't come back and claim you didn't really have those rights because there was an earlier letter.

Real life experience: I received a dunning letter which I believed to be the first written contact, but it didn't have the FDCPA required verification notice. They had also left several message on my answering maching which I felt violated the FDCPA in several ways. In my DV letter, I told them that as their letter was their first, it violated the FDCPA in that it didn't have the required verbiage, but I was nevertheless excercizing my right to dispute and demand verification. I also mentioned the violations contained in their answering messages. They didn't directly say they had sent previous letters, but I received 2 more dunning letters. I wrote again, told them these were yet more violations, and urged them to comply with the law. Their response: never heard from them again, the account was transferred to another CA.

DJ

[harleygirl]

Thanks DH. I figured that was a likely scenario, but was hoping to hear from others.

I doubt that for the age and amounts of my items I am going to sue at this point. I just wanted to understamd clearly.