Are there time limits to send DV?

[jakery1]

Are there time limits to send a DV. I saw LVNV was listed on my CR since March. They have used other CA to and collection and LVNV did not send me a letter. I sent a DV to them in the beginning in Oct and got my signed green card back. LVNV has not responded to me. Was to late for me to send a DV? If not, what are my next steps to deal with LVNV since they did not validate? Any suggestions would be great.

[debtorshusband]

First, you can send a DV letter at any time, although it is my personal preference not to send them "out of the blue", such as sending one if I see something on a credit report. Others here disagree with me. YMMV.

The only "time limit" in effect is the 30 day period after an initial dunning letter.

Here's the way it is supposed to work.

A new Collection Agency takes up the account. They call you. You say, "Send me your claims in writing," and hang up. This is the "initial contact," as described in the FDCPA. They are now required to send you a letter within 5 days which states how much they are claiming, who's claiming it, and it must contain the Verification Statement spelled out in the FDCPA. This statement says you have 30 days to dispute or they will "assume the debt is valid." This is when you send a DV letter. Such a DV letter within the 30 day period is "timely."

The only difference between a timely DV and any other DV (an "untimely" DV) is that for a timely DV they must cease collection activity until sending you documentation. If you don't send a timely DV, they "assume the debt is valid" and may continue collection activity.

In neither case (timely or untimely) is the Collection Agency required to respond to a DV. But if the DV was timely, they must cease collection activity, such as calling you or sending you demand letters, while if the DV is untimely, they can continue these actions, saying "sorry, your DV was untimely so we don't have to stop contacting you."

Now for your specific situation: If they are not contacting you, it may mean they are treating your DV as if it were timely. They have no time limit in which they must respond. They may right now be obtaining documentation to send to you, and it may take them months and months to produce it. Or, they may be giving up and selling your account to another Collection Agency to start over. In your shoes, I would sit tight and wait.

However, if it is important to you to get this removed from your credit reports, you'll have to get advice from others here. That's not my thing.

Good luck.

DH

[jakery1]

LVNV has yet to contact me at all. They originally were using LERS for CA, now they are using Brachfeld and Associates. I already sent Brachfeld a DV before receiving anything in writing. They contacted me on Oct 29 and claim they have sent letters to me and say I am tossing them out. I am documenting each time Brachfeld calls me because in my DV I requested they communicate via USPS. Since I have vonage for phone service I am able to print off the exact time they have called me if the need arises if I were to make a counterclaim. This whole thing just bugs me how they think they can treat people. In the mean time I am trying to get this off my credit reports.

[bobdole369]

LVNV has yet to contact me at all. They originally were using LERS for CA, now they are using Brachfeld and Associates. I already sent Brachfeld a DV before receiving anything in writing. They contacted me on Oct 29 and claim they have sent letters to me and say I am tossing them out. I am documenting each time Brachfeld calls me because in my DV I requested they communicate via USPS. Since I have vonage for phone service I am able to print off the exact time they have called me if the need arises if I were to make a counterclaim. This whole thing just bugs me how they think they can treat people. In the mean time I am trying to get this off my credit reports.

Some jurisdictions would consider reporting to your CR the initial communication.

Of course they counter with "We sent the letter, didn't you receive it?" and since they have a "system in place to correct errors" - they get away with it.

I would send the DV, and intimate that this is the initial communication. Expect a dunning soon thereafter. It's not solid but it "something".

[debtorshusband]

LVNV has yet to contact me at all. They originally were using LERS for CA, now they are using Brachfeld and Associates. I already sent Brachfeld a DV before receiving anything in writing. They contacted me on Oct 29 and claim they have sent letters to me and say I am tossing them out. I am documenting each time Brachfeld calls me because in my DV I requested they communicate via USPS. Since I have vonage for phone service I am able to print off the exact time they have called me if the need arises if I were to make a counterclaim. This whole thing just bugs me how they think they can treat people. In the mean time I am trying to get this off my credit reports.

First, Brachfield is a California attorney. They can't do anything to you in Ohio. They're hoping the implied threat of a letter from an attorney will scare you.

Second, there are no legal teeth to keep them from calling you, even if you request all communication be in writing. A timely DV will keep them from any collection activity, including calling, but they appear to be taking the position that your DV was untimely. ("claim they have sent letters to me and say I am tossing them out.")

In your place, I would probably do this: Send a letter stating the following:

- Contrary to your claims, you have not mailed me anything, and I do not throw out my mail. Your accusations to the contrary are unfounded and insulting.

- You refuse to honor my request to not call, but to communicate in writing.

- Therefore, I will no longer deal with you. I demand you cease all further communication.

Now if they call you, they are in clear violation of the FDCPA. (They are allowed one further contact to inform you of their intentions. A professional organization would do this in writing.)

This will solve the problem of them bothering you. The credit report issue will require other tactics.

Good luck.

DH

[debtorshusband]

Some jurisdictions would consider reporting to your CR the initial communication.

I don't think this is true. To reference my favorite example from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, this is the equivalent posting a demolition notice in the 3rd sub-basement of City Hall and expecting that to properly inform the soon-to-be-homeless resident.

If you find an item on your credit report and call or write the agency, you've created an initial communication, but I don't see how it can be argued that the act of reporting is in itself a proper "communication."

Regards,

DH

[bobdole369]

I know I'm stretching it without proof - and I will find the case law either way, but I swear I have seen it. Of course its exactly like h2g2, and of course its completely illegal and an actionable violation of the FDCPA, completely immoral and downright scuzzy of CA's to do that, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen all the time.

Here is some backup: The definitions portion of the the FDCPA defines "communications", 1692a (2): The term "Communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or inderectly to any person through any medium.

Building on that - Websters defines initial as: "of or relating to the beginning".

Put them together: "initial communication" means the first conveying of information regarding a debt directly to any person through any medium.

Thus: Reporting information regarding a debt directly to equifax via computer network could be construed as the initial communication to the consumer regarding the debt.

I know its deeper than that. I know there is case law. What that should trigger - is the 5 day validation notice. It doesn't happen that way all the time.

[debtorshusband]

For your consideration bobdole369:

"809. Validation of debts

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

consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,..."

I agree with your definitions. I even agree that reporting to a credit agency is a communication. I just don't agree that it's a communication with a consumer. (See earlier HGTTG reference.)

Regards,

DH

[bobdole369]

Disco! I'm wrong, thanks