Collection "on hold" letter in response to validation.

[daxbr]

I have been sending validation letters since the middle of last year. Pretty uneventful so far, as I only three CAs replied by sending copies of accounts statements.

However this week I received two replies to my standard validation letter that are out of the ordinary. I am advised that my validation notice was received and my account is placed "on hold" until CA receives requested information from OC. I am also advised the request may "take up to or exceed 30 days".

Regardless of their assurances that their collection efforts are "on hold", I received a phone call from them today that I dutifully recorded.

Is this a violation? How can I use it later?

[antiquedave]

If you only get the one call they can take the stance that it was an honest mistake and depending on your courts might be able to fly with it,

but FDCPA only requires ONE violation to prevail on

It's nicer if there are more, sit back and see what they do over the next 30 days, they may just pass it on to the next collector rather than answer, if they continue to call (or send collection letters) during the validation period you'll have a good FDCPA case to pursue and even if this was the only call I'd still use it against them, esepcially as a cross claim against the collector.

[daxbr]

If you only get the one call they can take the stance that it was an honest mistake and depending on your courts might be able to fly with it,

but FDCPA only requires ONE violation to prevail on

It's nicer if there are more, sit back and see what they do over the next 30 days, they may just pass it on to the next collector rather than answer, if they continue to call (or send collection letters) during the validation period you'll have a good FDCPA case to pursue and even if this was the only call I'd still use it against them, esepcially as a cross claim against the collector.

Thanks a lot for your reply. What is the purpose of this letter if it does not release them from 30 days rule?

[antiquedave]

I received one letter like that last year, I just considered it to be notice that they got my dunning letter and were ceasing collection until they could respond, and then I never heard from that one again.

sometimes it is what it is,

but they can say it is part of their internal protocol, that they send that letter, move your account over to a non collection status, update their internal call lists to not call, etc etc, then if you sue on that single call they can pull out their protocols and say we are sorry judge, one of our collectors didn't refresh their list here is our procedures to insure internal compliance etc etc.

[BV80]

I have been sending validation letters since the middle of last year. Pretty uneventful so far, as I only three CAs replied by sending copies of accounts statements.

However this week I received two replies to my standard validation letter that are out of the ordinary. I am advised that my validation notice was received and my account is placed "on hold" until CA receives requested information from OC. I am also advised the request may "take up to or exceed 30 days".

Regardless of their assurances that their collection efforts are "on hold", I received a phone call from them today that I dutifully recorded.

Is this a violation? How can I use it later?

Did you send your DV request within 30 days of their first communication with you?

[daxbr]

Yes, certified letter. Returned receipt came back signed.

[Happybluesky]

Related question.

During 30 day period after initial collection letter, but before DV letter received by CA, would a second dunning letter be an FDCPA violation? I would think so, but not sure.

Might there be exceptions, such as if the second letter was an offer to settle?

[daxbr]

Last February I started this thread because I received a notice from JDB in response to my Validation Letter that stated "my validation notice was received and my account is placed "on hold" until CA receives requested information from OC."

The note was dated middle of February and I have not heard from them until today (end of May 2012). It appears they validated debt by providing sworn affidavit from OC.

This is a scanned copy of the complete affidavit with specific info deleted:

AFFIDAVIT

State of XXX

County of XXX

Account Name: XXX

Account No: XXX

The undersigned employee ("Affiant"), being sworn, deposes and says that Affiant is an employee of

the Bank, which is located at XXX.

Affiant is authorized to make the statements and representations herein. The Bank business records show

that as of XX/XX/2011, there was due and payable from the Account number referenced above the

amount of $XXX. Bank's business records show that this Account was acquired on XX/XX/2012.

Affiant states that the original agreement and document evidencing the creation of this Account is lost

or destroyed, but to the best of Affiant's knowledge, information and belief there are no uncredited

payments against the said debt, and the amount due is true and accurate according to Bank's books

and record.

Affiant Signature:

Affiant Name: XXX

Affiant Title: Recovery Representative

. Subscribed to and sworn to before me this~ day of by the

Affiant described above XXX

Notary Pub1 XXX

Questions:

- Is this a valid Validation?

- Is there anything I should do at this point?

- How can I use information provided in this Affidavit (lost records, incorrect account opening date) to my advantage?

[BV80]

What's your goal? Are they reporting on your credit report? Have they threatened to sue?

[daxbr]

What's your goal? Are they reporting on your credit report? Have they threatened to sue?

Goal is to wait for statue of limitations, defend in court if I have to. Nuclear option if loose in court.

The account in question was deleted from my credit report by OC. JDB is not reporting but made hard inquiry. No one is threatening to sue.

[BV80]

Goal is to wait for statue of limitations, defend in court if I have to. Nuclear option if loose in court.

The account in question was deleted from my credit report by OC. JDB is not reporting but made hard inquiry. No one is threatening to sue.

Any idea why the OC deleted? If the account is within the SOL for collection in FL (4 or 5 years?), it's definitely within the SOL for reporting on your CR (7.5 years).

In any case, if the JDB were to sue, they'd have to prove ownership of the account. Save that affidavit. You never know when it might come in handy.

If it were me and if the debt is within the SOL for collection, I'd just sit and wait right now.

[daxbr]

Any idea why the OC deleted? If the account is within the SOL for collection in FL (4 or 5 years?), it's definitely within the SOL for reporting on your CR (7.5 years).

In any case, if the JDB were to sue, they'd have to prove ownership of the account. Save that affidavit. You never know when it might come in handy.

If it were me and if the debt is within the SOL for collection, I'd just sit and wait right now.

Thanks, will do that. No idea why charged off account was deleted. Bank is still reporting on two closed accounts that were closed in good standing as part of apporama.

Two more observations:

- affidavit was written on blank piece of paper, no bank letterhead.

- phrase used is like an CA, not like bank: "Account was acquired on xx/xx/2012". Account was bought on this day by CA, not opened by bank.

Is it possible CA sent me fake affidavit?

[Coltfan1972]

Thanks, will do that. No idea why charged off account was deleted. Bank is still reporting on two closed accounts that were closed in good standing as part of apporama.

Two more observations:

- affidavit was written on blank piece of paper, no bank letterhead.

- phrase used is like an CA, not like bank: "Account was acquired on xx/xx/2012". Account was bought on this day by CA, not opened by bank.

Is it possible CA sent me fake affidavit?

And you have just made your argument when the judge asks you on what grounds, when you say "objection" if they try to introduce into evidence.

You just nailed why any affidavit is hearsay, no matter what type of paper it's on or who signs the affidavit.

You can't ask an affidavit questions, like the ones you just raised, therefore, again, you just made your hearsay arguments.

[BV80]

Thanks, will do that. No idea why charged off account was deleted. Bank is still reporting on two closed accounts that were closed in good standing as part of apporama.

Two more observations:

- affidavit was written on blank piece of paper, no bank letterhead.

- phrase used is like an CA, not like bank: "Account was acquired on xx/xx/2012". Account was bought on this day by CA, not opened by bank.

Is it possible CA sent me fake affidavit?

The affidavit appears to be from a JDB...debt buyer. They bought the account. The OC is no longer in the picture.

In that affidavit, the JDB states that the information required to show the formation of the account has been lost or destroyed. If they tried to sue, I'd use that.

In an Interrogatory, you could ask the date the account was opened. In a production of documents, you request copies of all the documents from the alleged original creditor related to the account. If they provide a date for which the account was opened (answer to your Interrogatory), but can't provide documents to prove that date, present the affidavit. They've admitted such documentation has been lost or destroyed. Therefore, how did they come up with the opening date?