montanaman

LVNV verified, then immediately sold - I think

Recommended Posts

I have an LVNV TL on all three reports for $471. I disputed through the CRA's and of course they came back verified yesterday. So, I typed up my letter to go to LVNV asking them to investigate the verification and provide me with the proper documentation; however, before I went to the post office today, I received a letter from Receivables Performance Management, LLC saying that Resurgent Capital Services represents LVNV and that the account has been assigned to them for collection. They say the LVNV is the current owner and that the OC was GE Capital (Charge off). They also now have the amount due as $467.55.

So, I am not going to mail my letter to LVNV, but what should my next step be? Who do I contact now? LVNV, Resurgent Capital Services, or Receivables Performance Management?

They also do state in the letter "Unless you notify this office within 30 days..." typical language. Additionally, they say, "If you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will: obtain verfification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail yo ua copy of such judgment or verification." Well, I wasn't planning on asking for verification but an investigation with LVNV.

So, which "company" am I now dealing with, and what about the amount discrepency? I know that it's a few dollars less, but it's still different than what is being reported to all three CRAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all the same, all a "Sherman Company". Nitro is right, go ahead and send all 3 a DV, put a blurb in there too for instance that no Sherman Company subsidiary or affiliate may contact you via the telephone or at work etc, can't hurt. Most likely at least one of them will contact you via phone and commit an FDCPA violation right then and there, it only takes one. LVNV will also NOT properly validate, they'll just answer with the usual canned blurb that you are infact the correct party the alleged debt belongs to according to their "investigation"...laughable at best. Don't accept this answer of course and fire off a second DV basically the same as the first only the first paragraph should state that due to their insufficient response and lack of providing the requested proof that as far as you are concerned the debt is still disputed. They do this as in their eyes I think it starts a fresh 30 days for them to answer when you fire off the second DV. Not sure on the legality of that or if it even matters. Keep tabs on your CR's too, they usually always continue reporting regardless of DV letters. They are rocks, treat'em as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF we look at Senftle v Landau

This case supports the view that the consumer has only one chance to request validation under the FDCPA; that right is available, according to the court, only with the first third-party collector to get the account.

The decision: The court granted the Defendant summary judgment on the FDCPA claims ruling that Landau and Landau was not, as a subsequent CA, required to provide validation per ยง1692g of the FDCPA and also refused to stay the execution on the judgment.

We see the case cites Ditty v. Checkrite in that the debtor only gets one chance at validation. If you miss the train from the first collector, you miss it for the rest of the subsequent collectors.

However, if the courts take this as true, would they not only have to assume that if you timely DV the first collector and they don't Validate, any subsequent collector could be held liable under the FDCPA for failure to validate prior to collecting. It seems to me to be the same logic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF we look at Senftle v Landau

We see the case cites Ditty v. Checkrite in that the debtor only gets one chance at validation. If you miss the train from the first collector, you miss it for the rest of the subsequent collectors.

However, if the courts take this as true, would they not only have to assume that if you timely DV the first collector and they don't Validate, any subsequent collector could be held liable under the FDCPA for failure to validate prior to collecting. It seems to me to be the same logic...

Thanks for all the help...of course, this brings it back to full circle. If they are only required to respond to one, which subsidiary of the business do I send DV to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LVNV is the mother of the other's so send the DV to them. Whereas the case law provided above is interesting it could still be construed as unconcienable for a CA to throw several of its affiliates in your face for the sole purpose of confusion which is LVNV's mo pure and simple.

DV LVNV, if and likely when they fail to validate, when their other companies come a calling send them a COPY of the DV letter you sent their mama company LVNV and let them know they're pursuing an unvalidated debt and in violation of the FDCPA. They are all part of the Sherman Companies and the only reason they hit the consumer with a dunning notice with at least 3 of their companies listed is to create confusion amongst unsuspecting consumers. They also are trying to make themselves out to be the actual OC which is how they like to make themselves look on your credit reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the assistance.

Interesting results from some of my verifications that are now coming in hot and heavy. Two of my TL's have come back verified, but updated with LOWER amounts. That is in addition to the LVNV that has a lower amount in the recent letter, but not lower on the CR. I wonder if this is a technique the CA's are trying. Report lower amounts in hopes that I will just pay it instead of pursuing with an investigation request.

Something else I didn't catch before...one of the CA (HSBC) has the exact same account number as the OC (GE/Walmart). Isn't HSBC supposed to have a different/unique account number for the TL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LVNV sent me a dandy of a validation letter today per Resurgent Capital Services.

If you look up at the top of the form you'll see computer document number.

Mine was VLVDCDR-CS A-XX-XXX-XXXXX-X

The letter in it's entierty

Validation of Debt

Dec XX 2009

LUEser

As of the date of this communication, you owe $XXX.XX on Account number XXXXXXXXXX which is now owned by LVNV Funding LLC. Should you desire to pay off the account in full, you should contact us at 888-665-0374 to determine the payoff balance as interest, payments, credits, fees, and/or other permissible charges can continue to cause your account balance to vary from day to day.

Yep, that was it.

It was a three page letter. And I dunno if it was by mistake or what, but they gave me another 30 days to validate the debt.

Seems they've changed their mini-miranda, too.

"This is a communication from Resurgent Capital Services, LP., a professional debt collector."

Technical violation? Maybe, I'll have to look at a strict reading of 1692e(a)(11)

Nope, they just have to say that the communication is from a debt collector. Looks like they're getting tired of all the lawsuits afterall :lol:

But I appreciate their offer for second validation lol. I'll ask for it this time not on form VLVDCDR-CS A-01-I59-00560-3

Edited by LUEser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.