Nationwide called but no dunn letter

[Lulu123]

Nationwide called me on the 16th of September, they told me that a letter had been sent out 3 days before. That would have been the 13th. Even though she insisted that I had received the letter, I never got one. Still today it hasn't come the 19th. Even a manager said the letter was sent 3 days before.

Should I call them and tell them I didn't receive the letter? Should I send a DV without the letter?

I don't know if they are reporting on my CR or not. I just signed up with Identity Guard and the report has not come through yet.

Also, do CA's have a right to be rude to you? Can I add up rudeness as a violation in my DV letter when I send it?

Thank You!

[LUEser]

Looks like they're baiting you.

They like to try to date a letter waaaay before they send it, then it limits your validation time. Be sure to check the post office stamp, not the date on the letter if/when you get it. That's the 30 day clock you go by.

And what's worse, they have to send it to you in 5 days regardless.

1692g(a)

§ 809. Validation of debts

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a

consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,

a debt collector shall, unless the following information is

contained in the initial communication or the consumer has

paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—

Perhaps you have your first violation. Don't you just love leverage?

[Lulu123]

Does contact include leaving a message on voice mail? Because they left a message a few days before that.

When you say 5 days, is that including postal delivery time or it has to leave their office within 5 days. I am thinking it has to leave their office within 5 days because who knows how long the USPS takes these days..

[JustaTexan]

Also, do CA's have a right to be rude to you? Can I add up rudeness as a violation in my DV letter when I send it?

Thank You!

Oh how many wish that was true. I would like to smack every rude person I meet, (just because I have a particular dislike for rude people in general), but I can't.

Now if they threatened you or cursed at you and you have it recorded, that is a different story!

***On a side note, do you mean Nationwide, (the actual company), meaning they were just using their collection dept. or an actual collection agency. I'm assuming it's just a CA but I don't like to a$$ume.

[Lulu123]

Oh how many wish that was true. I would like to smack every rude person I meet, (just because I have a particular dislike for rude people in general), but I can't.

Now if they threatened you or cursed at you and you have it recorded, that is a different story!

No cursing or threatning, When I told her I was going to record the conversation too she handed me over to a manger. I guess she didn't want to be rude any more.. Wish I had a recorder, that seems to stop them in their tracks and they don't have much to say then. In my experience anyway.

[LUEser]

Yes, the five day thing is a check to make sure they can't screw you out of your validation right.

It's five days from initial contact, that is they have five days to get the letter in the mail.

There's usually a bit of leeway as you pointed out because who knows how long USPS takes these days. Sometimes it's a day or so. Other's it's a couple of weeks. That why I directed you to the post mark.

Picture this: They send you a letter dated June 3rd. But it's postmarked August 10th.

They may have written it on the 3rd, but by law they have to get it in the mail to you by the 8th, and you should receive it 10-20 days thereafter. Still with plenty of time to DV.

Do you still have the voicemail saved?

[debtorshusband]

A couple points of order.

Here is the wording from the FDCPA (underlining mine):

Sec. 1692g. Validation of debts

(a) Notice of debt; contents

Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in

connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall,

unless the following information is contained in the initial

communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a

written notice containing--...

So 5 days to send a letter - my interpretation would be 5 days to get it into the mail and postmarked. I would think a message left on voicemail is an initial communication, but I may be wrong... At any rate, you need to allow a reasonable amount of time for the post office to deliver before you start accusing them of not complying with the law.

And then:

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days

after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or

any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the

debt collector;

So your 30 days to DV starts when you receive the letter. Although a postmark may help estimate when it was received, the postmark date is not the date which would bind you. Only the recipient can say for sure exactly what date the letter was received. Make a note of the date it was received. For my money, if you return from a 2 month long vacation to find a dunning letter, your 30 days to DV starts that day you get the letter in you hand. If there are unusual circumstances, and you think you might be challenged, assert in your DV letter the date you received the dunning letter, and that the DV is within the 30 days allowed - which is proved by your CRRR receipt.

Regards,

DH

[Debt Guy]

OP

You don't have to actually receive the dunning letter to send a DV.

LUE -- you are again assuming lots of facts not in evidence. It is confusing and misleading to be jumping to conclusions all the time. I know you are reveling in your new found knowledge -- keep in mind that the person you are talking to is likely not up to your level of knowledge, aggressiveness or may or may not share your motivation -- remember this is a lot of venting on the board that is just that -- venting.

Just as an aside -- you never thought to ask the OP if the collector had the current and correct address. And, you apparently have not yet grasped the idea that a collector has no legal obligation to prove that the dunning letter was sent -- the collector only needs to show that they have in place a procedure to send dunning letters (which, I promise you, NCO does) -- so where does this line of conversation take the OP? Nowhere useful.

The OP can allege anything and can bring a suit against the collector for failing to send the dunning letter. Given the identified facts we have here, the odds that the OP would prevail are about 1 in 10000 or so. I don't like those odds. Do you?

DH -- dead on in both rationale and conclusions

-- as to the issue of a message constituting initial contact -- it would depend if the message was a communication. Be definition, a communication requires the transmission of information. Most messages are just please call 888-555-1212 regarding a business matter -- that message would not constitute contact since it communicated no information that was meaningful. Conversely, if the message said "this is abc collection agency and you owe $xxx on your big bank credit card and we want you to pay the debt" -- well, that would be communication and contact.

[LUEser]

Test by fire...lol

As far as a collector not having to prove they sent the dunning. I'll concede there, but by that same token wouldn't the person dunned have the same ability to argue non-receipt?

Just proving a system is in place doesn't necessarily help the collector in a one on one confrontation in the court room. I would think that standard practice would be that the CA keep records of the addresses dunned, and with proper discovery, one could find out whether or not a letter ever was sent to a certain address, and moreover whether or not their right to validate was neglected.

But I do concede, you hit it dead on. I do get a tad overzealous, and for the sake of thoroughness, I'll try to be more cognizant of what's actually been said rather than making assumptions.

[admin]

Case law has indeed proved that first notification can be when you pull your credit report. However, case law has also found for the fact that you can ALWAYS ask for debt validation, even if the 30 days is up.

Just keep repeating to yourself:

collection agencies have no documentation......

collection agencies have no documentation......

In all the clients I have talked to, I've had less than 5% of clients having been shown any kind of documentation which meets the incredibly low standard of debt validation (one poor copy of a statement or canceled check from the OC is enough), and 0% of any clients being sued by a collection agency/JDB having been presented through the court process with any kind of documentation which could not be thrown out as hearsay.

Even if they are able to validation a debt, so what? You can still make them go away by using the clause in the FDCPA to make them go away (known here as the cease and desist method.)

If you are willing to litigate, you can still use the 623 method to get this collection taken off your credit report.

Don't get hung up on debt validation. It's just one tool.

[Debt Guy]

but by that same token wouldn't the person dunned have the same ability to argue non-receipt?

Well, it can be argued. And it has many times. Courts have consistently ruled against the consumer in that situation. I'm sure a judge somewhere has said differently but I've never seen a published opinion to that effect. Any CA/DB attorney worth snot knows how to counter the argument.

collection agencies have no documentation......

Can you please show me where it says a CA is required to have any documentation of any type. CAs, under the assignment from the OC, are entitled to rely on the OCs representation as to documentation.

the incredibly low standard of debt validation (one poor copy of a statement or canceled check from the OC is enough),

Actually, the standard for validation is not that high. Please show me anywhere that debt validation is defined as a copy of a statement or a canceled check.

I've had less than 5% of clients having been shown any kind of documentation which meets the incredibly low standard of debt validation (one poor copy of a statement or canceled check from the OC is enough), and 0% of any clients being sued by a collection agency/JDB having been presented through the court process with any kind of documentation which could not be thrown out as hearsay

I'm just curious. What kind of clients do you have. Are you licensed under the CROA? Your words and context lead one to wonder if you cross the line to barrity.

[admin]

collection agencies have no documentation......

Can you please show me where it says a CA is required to have any documentation of any type. CAs, under the assignment from the OC, are entitled to rely on the OCs representation as to documentation.

Per the FCRA, they need to have documentation to report negative information. Currently, through eOscar, the CRAs take their word for it. If you press them in court, they will lose.

the incredibly low standard of debt validation (one poor copy of a statement or canceled check from the OC is enough),

Actually, the standard for validation is not that high. Please show me anywhere that debt validation is defined as a copy of a statement or a canceled check.

Opinion letters from the FTC (Wollman) numerous instances of case law. (Let me dig it up).

I'm just curious. What kind of clients do you have. Are you licensed under the CROA? Your words and context lead one to wonder if you cross the line to barrity.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/misc/ConsumerCreditFileRights.pdf

[Debt Guy]

Per the FCRA, they need to have documentation to report negative information. Currently, through eOscar, the CRAs take their word for it. If you press them in court, they will lose.

I'll re-read FCRA. I sure don't remember anything like that.

Opinion letters from the FTC (Wollman) numerous instances of case law. (Let me dig it up).

Dig hard because you are wrong. Wollman says no such thing. I recently posted at length what Wollman means and what the words mean.

The only case law that is on point is Chaudhry (which everyone hates). All the other court decisions out there are really disputes regarding disclosure of legal fees. Those would be of very limited helpfulness.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/misc/ConsumerCreditFileRights.pdf

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Per the FCRA, they need to have documentation to report negative information.

Well…I don’t claim to be an expert on the FCRA but I have read it (and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express many times) and I don’t see what you are referring to.

As far as I understand from the FCRA, a CA is not required or expected to have any “records”…essentially, they know what their customer (the creditor) tells them and as long as they accurately report the information they are provided, that’s essentially all they are required to do. When a consumer disputes the information; they have an obligation to substantiate what is/isn’t correct and correct or remove (if the data is found to be incorrect) but data still has to come from the creditor.

More importantly, however I don’t see how this applies here…no one here has said or indicated that this CA is reporting to the bureaus so whatever the FCRA may/may not require is a moot point

[admin]

Well, I see the CROA disclosure. But you never responded as to your license -- I am pretty sure AZ requires one. Barrity?

No license, just bonding.

[admin]

Per the FCRA, they need to have documentation to report negative information. Currently, through eOscar, the CRAs take their word for it. If you press them in court, they will lose.

I'll re-read FCRA. I sure don't remember anything like that.

§ 623. (

Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

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

(

review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];

© report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and

(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly--

(i) modify that item of information;

(ii) delete that item of information; or

(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

They will probably say the information is verified. But if you suspect they do not have this info (which is most likely the case), you can press the case in court. If they don't remove, it's willful non-compliance.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

....

I don't see anything there that requires a CA to be the custodians of the actual records...the requirement is to "investigate" the consumer’s dispute; they don’t have to have the original records to conduct an investigation.

Let’s be realistic here…even the OC’s records are going to be compute based, not “paper”.

By and large, if there is some question about some material fact such as when the account first went delinquent and was never again brought current or what date the account was actually charged-off, the OC is going to refer to their computer based records for such pieces of information.

Now, if they have a really good guy looking into it (like me for example) he may cross check things by looking into several different databases/systems to make sure everything agrees but there is no piece of paper anyone can turn to as “proof”.

Hopefully, the creditor’s digital records were kept contemporaneously and, therefore, reflect what happened at the time but that’s about the best anyone can hope for…a large company depends on its “systems” and “procedures” to ensure an appropriate level or accuracy (but not necessarily 100% accuracy).

In any case, I still don't see how this applies here since the CA in question doesn't appear to be reporting anything to the bureaus?

[LUEser]

The CAs don't have to be custodians of the records. But they can't be lazy about it and say, sure that' what our records say if they don't have them.

To simplify:

OP disputes with CRAs. (611)

CRAs tell DF (in this case CA), there's a dispute, and are supposed to forward the information provided by the consumer to them. (623((1))

CA investigates their claims and responds. (623((1)(A))

CA investigates the information forwarded by CRA (623((1)(

a) They verify, they have the information or they verified it with the OC. No foul (623((1)©

They verify, and they're lazy and only check that piece of paper they bought. Foul (623)((1)(D) because it is inaccurate.

c) They delete the TL because they don't want to pay 1000 dollars. Win! (623((1)(E)(ii)

They fail on D because they don't make an attempt to figure whether or not it's inaccurate or not and don't take the necessary steps to remedy it as outlined in E.