Validation only requires name and address of OC?

[bobdole369]

FDCPA only here. Lets say a debt collector duns you. You respond with a validation/name and address letter. They provide the name and address of the OC, and thats it. They immediately continue collection efforts.

You replied within 30 days of the initial communication - asking for validation AND the name and address of the OC. They only provided the name and address of the OC.

What part of FDCPA is violated?

Normally I would say 15 usc 1692g ( as I've been ravenously believing for some time.

Read it. Actually read it. This was pointed out to me by a friend in law school. Any case law to back our side up?

"obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment,

or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy

of such verification or judgment, or name and address of

the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt

collector."

Note that it says "copy of such verification or judgment, OR name and address of the original creditor"

What gives? How did I miss this for years?

Here's the entirety of 1692g ( for reference.

( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within

the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the

debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the con-

sumer requests the name and address of the original credi-

tor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt,

or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector

obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment,

or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy

of such verification or judgment, or name and address of

the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt

collector. Collection activities and communications that

do not otherwise violate this title may continue during

the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the

consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the

debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the con-

sumer requests the name and address of the original credi-

tor. Any collection activities and communication during the

30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with

the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or

request the name and address of the original creditor.

I know Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo and Spears v. Brennan exist, but they are contradictory and its still unclear what is absolutely required of the DC when asking for validation.

[henry1018]

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

I think you're mis-reading your 'ands and ors'. But this opinion letter surely refutes your interpretation of the language

[bobdole369]

Henry,

Thank you.

Thank you thank you.

Thank you again.

[bobdole369]

Too bad its not case law. The two cases I mentioned above are just about all I can find.

Anyone know different?