Jump to content

JDB says I did not provide sufficient info to validate?


Recommended Posts

So received intial dunning letter from JDB. DV sent and just received their reply.

"The purpose of this letter is to advise you that you did not provide sufficient information to investigate your dispute of the above referenced account. sent general disputed letter

In order to investigate your dispute, we need detailed information to identify the basis of your dispute, including a complete explanation of your dispute. Further, we need a copy of any documentation you may have to support your dispute. In the interim, we have requested that the three major credit bureas change the status of this account to "Disputed."

Examples of documentation we need include the following:

1. copy of contract that states rates for time frame of disputed service

2. copy of bills or statements that show amoun towed or rates

3. a more detailed explanation of disputed charges."

WTH?? Can they do this? Aren't they suppose to provide that inforamtion? What's my next step now, rebuttal letter back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This letter is being sent to you in response your dunning letter claiming you have an account in my name. Since I do not recall or have any record of having an account with xxx Bank, I am requesting you verify this claim of account. Be advised that this is a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (B) that your claim of account listed is not recognized and verification is requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the FDCPA, all they have to do to validate a debt is provide the name of the OC and the original amount. If that was included in the dunning letter, it's pretty much validated.

If the debt is outside the SOL, I would send them a letter telling them that I dispute the debt and to cease all contact forever.

Are they reporting on your CR? If so, they should be reporting it as "disputed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This letter is being sent to you in response your dunning letter claiming you have an account in my name. Since I do not recall or have any record of having an account with xxx Bank, I am requesting you verify this claim of account. Be advised that this is a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (B) that your claim of account listed is not recognized and verification is requested.

If it were me, I'd send them a second dispute letter informing them that their first letter did not contain sufficient information for you to determine whether the alleged debt is valid or that it actually belongs to you, therefore the debt is still in dispute.

I'd reference their letter(s) as an enclosure and send them a copy of the letter(s) they sent to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like they want me to provide the info they should have.

The amount the show does not match anything on my CR and the OC is not on my CR either. OC does not ring a bell at all!

Is the debt outside the SOL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the debt outside the SOL?

I have no idea. The original account is not on my credit report. I don't know when it went in to default, anything. As I said it doesn't ring a bell at all. Without the OC on my report, how do I get the info if JDB won't provide info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second DV letter should be even shorter! The less said the better. Something like this -

Your Name

Your Address

Their Name

Their Address

Date

In Re: _________________(account number they show)

Dear _______________ (whoever wrote the letter),

This letter is in response to your letter dated ______________.

This matter remains in dispute.

All phone calls are inconvenient, so all communications need to be by mail.

Regards,

You

BTW, did you happen to elect arbitration in your first DV letter? That always throws them for a loop and sets them up for another violation. :)++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's either Experian or Equifax that tells you the date the debt is due to fall off. See if their TL on one of those CRs shows that date. If that date is available, you will be able to figure out the date of default. Since you don't know if the debt is yours or not, it might help to know the default date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JDB = Midland

Linda- never mentioned arbitration. Not at all familiar with how that works in the dv process. I thought that was only in response to litigation?

Not at all! If you go ahead and elect it in your DV letter, then "if" they pursue you in court - you have a wonderful violation against them. Also, you can show the Judge where you previously elected arbitration by showing the letter you sent to them along with your green card back. Then have a MTC arbitration filed with your answer. Now all this hinges if the OC has an arbitration provision in the agreement. BTW, who do they claim is the OC?

And depending on the amount of the debt, a lot of times if you elect arbitration, they decide to dismiss (or won't even pursue you with a summons) as they don't want to pay the fees they have to pay.

Check your credit report as BV said for the default date. Also see if the OC they list is on there and if so, find the date it was opened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you don't remember Citibank, you could try looking through old bank statements. Midland obviously got the account in 6/08. If they bought the account right after charge-off, the date of last payment would have been around 12/07 or 1/08. You would need to look through the 3 previous years of statements. If there's no payment to Citibank, you've got them. If it is an old debt that's outside the SOL, you fight them to get them off your CR.

I did that before. I got copies of 3 years of bank statements from my bank. It's also good to have the statements in case anything else comes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

That's TT. It's not really for me, but a friend and I think his ultimate goal is to simply have it removed. In the letter they sent in response to his "Zombie" letter, they mentioned that they are marking it as disputed and will make no further contact unless in response to him, etc.

His story sounds similar. He didn't validate within the first 30 days and his initial attempt to validate earlier this summer, (not within 30 days of Midland notifying him), went unanswered. About positive he didn't send it CMRRR. But he did send the Zombie letter CMRRR.

One thing i noticed in their response was the line:

We can be reached... In the meantime, as requested by you, we will no longer be contacting you regarding this account by phone or mail unless it is to further respond to a dispute by you under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

I thought FCRA dealt with OCs and FDCRA governs CAs? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought FCRA dealt with OCs and FDCRA governs CAs? :confused:

FCRA= Fair Credit Reporting Act. Anything and everything that could be construed under "credit reporting", including CAs reporting to your credit files.

FDCPA= Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Anything and everything related to the collection of debts.

FCRA and FDCPA go hand in hand when dealing with collection agency and credit reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aha - so they're not really citing something incorrectly. Completely misunderstood that part.

So if this is out of the SOL, wouldn't a Debt Collector be falsely representing the status of the debt by continuing to report it or are they trying to circumvent that by claiming he didn't provide them enough information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aha - so they're not really citing something incorrectly. Completely misunderstood that part.

So if this is out of the SOL, wouldn't a Debt Collector be falsely representing the status of the debt by continuing to report it or are they trying to circumvent that by claiming he didn't provide them enough information?

click the "credit repair primer" link in my signature...

SOL has nothing to do with the amount of time an entry can be on one's credit report. SOL is the amount of time that someone has to file a lawsuit, completely unrelated to credit reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply! I always wondered how that was true. Specifically, I too had a debt that was beyond the SOL and missed the 30-day validation window. But when I sent the CA a zombie letter containing:

...As outlined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as a debt collector, you are violating provisions of the FDCPA by implying that the legal status of the debt is collectible by reporting the alleged debt to the credit bureaus. The exact statute:

[15 USC 1692e]

(2) The false representation of –

(A) the legal status of the alleged debt

and

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt

...

they removed it from the Credit Reports. His letter also included this reference, but instead of the CA dropping the tradelines, they used this "insufficient" letter to deflect what he was trying to do. Are the above reference and associated "zombie" letters more bark than bite then? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.