Does this constitute a violation of the FDCPA?

[nyctonyw]

I got a collection letter for a credit card and submitted a general FDCPA response asking the company for verification of the debt, to contact my credit report, etc. etc.

I never heard back from them.

Until today.

I get another letter now from a law firm, same account, everything, basically saying the same thing as the first colelction agency, telling me I have 30 days or else its valid.

So 2 Q's

Since the first collection agency basically passed this off to a law firm instead of responding to my letter, is this a violation?

second, do I respond to the new letter with the same letter given to the first collection agency, once again disputing the debt.

thanks for your help. Hope Im being clear.

P.S. The first collection agency did recieve the first letter as they signed for it.

[legal_loansharking]

Not really a violation since they assigned it to a collection attorney. If the collection attorney uses the same address, yes it would be, if not no.

Send the attorney a new letter referencing the old letter and copy of the green card.

[nyctonyw]

Ok Thanks for clarification

[Flyingifr]

First, it is unclear as a principle of law that a VOD letter to CA#1 is binding on CA#2. This aspect simply has not yet been litigated. If you would like to be the first you are welcome to do so.

Second, you misread the letter from CA#2 - after 30 days if you do not dispute they may assume the debt to be valid. FDCPA specifically states that failure to dispute does not serve as an admission of the validity of the debt.

While they are assuming your debt to be valid, they can also assume

That the Earth is Flat

That the moon is made of Cream Cheese

The existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Leprechauns

They have a pet Unicorn

The lesson is simple - an assumption is NOT a fact.