Sign in to follow this  
Alchemy

Reply to DV request

Recommended Posts

In response to my DV request, I received a copy of a seven month old credit card statement....that was it. 

 

Is this enough? Doesn't this CA need to show proof of debt ownership and something else? 

 

Do I reply and how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can if you like send a 2nd letter (certified mail) letting them know that the statement they sent does not legally suffice as validation of the debt.

 

You require the following:

 

1) Original app with signature (If they claim it was done online then ask for app header with your info and IP)

2) At least 6 statements leading up to the alleged debt to show how or if it actually was owed.

3) Copies of any letters, notices etc...

4) Last 12 payments made by you (checks, electronic etc..)

 

Make sure you send this certified mail return receipt requested.

 

Make sure you tell them not to contact you by telephone. To send the info via US Mail.

 

May the schwartz be with you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that they did validate properly. I have written back to say that the account is still in dispute but asking for those other documents only help in court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can if you like send a 2nd letter (certified mail) letting them know that the statement they sent does not legally suffice as validation of the debt.

 

You require the following:

 

1) Original app with signature (If they claim it was done online then ask for app header with your info and IP)

2) At least 6 statements leading up to the alleged debt to show how or if it actually was owed.

3) Copies of any letters, notices etc...

4) Last 12 payments made by you (checks, electronic etc..)

 

Make sure you send this certified mail return receipt requested.

 

Make sure you tell them not to contact you by telephone. To send the info via US Mail.

 

May the schwartz be with you!

 

What law says a CA/JDB must provide all of the above in order to validate a debt?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law does not stipulate specific documents a creditor / collector must provide however absent being able to verify that the debt belongs to "that consumer" and that the amount is correct they are forced to cease collection of the debt.

 

Please see: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/krisor2.htm

 

There are many hairs that can be split here however if you DON'T request detailed verification you might lose an opportunity later if sued to state you had done so.

 

Each court handles these cases differently but in the end if someone sues you for money they are going to have to "prove" you owe it.

 

The burden of proof in a civil case is quite steep and a judge / jury would require more than just a current statement to substantiate that the correct person is being sued and the alleged debt is acutally owed.

 

Therefore I instruct all who ask to request as much as possible to put the collector in a position where they either produce or don't.

 

If they don't one has begun the process of establishing a possible defense later and gaining knowledge of what they do and don't have available for proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They validated.   The standards for meeting debt validation requirements are quite low.  

 

If they were suing in court, that statement wouldn't hold up, but we aren't talking court here.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law does not stipulate specific documents a creditor / collector must provide however absent being able to verify that the debt belongs to "that consumer" and that the amount is correct they are forced to cease collection of the debt.

 

"That consumer" and the amount.  That's it. 

 

The purpose of validation is to make sure the wrong person isn't being dunned and that amount is correct.  Many courts, including circuit courts of appeals, have stated as much.  Anything beyond that falls into other areas of the FDCPA. 

 

I read the letter.  It's an informal opinion by a staff member of the FTC.  I found no case law that mentioned letter or author. 

 

 

There are many hairs that can be split here however if you DON'T request detailed verification you might lose an opportunity later if sued to state you had done so.

 

That sentence doesn't even make sense.  Since when does it matter if one gets to tell the judge he requested detailed verification.?

 

If a creditor sues a debtor, it doesn't matter if he previously requested validation or not.  Telling the judge one requested detailed verification makes no difference to the judge in determining whether or not you the money.   You honestly believe the judge is going to say, "You requested the signed contract and they didn't provide it???  Well, shame on them!  Mr. Debtor, you don't owe the money.  Case dismissed."

 

Of course, he's not going to say that.  In fact, judges themselves don't require a signed application to be provided by the creditor.  By suggesting that requesting detailed verication will make a difference if one is sued, you are misleading people.

 

Detailed verification is the purpose of the discovery process in a lawsuit.  Most CAs know good and well they don't have to provide what you suggested in response to a DV letter.  They also know they don't have to give a reason for not providing the requested items in response to the DV.

 

However, if they sue and the debtor requests those items, the OC/CA/JDB most certainly does have to provide them.  If they don't, then they do have to give a reason as to why they can't or won't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me a case where a debtor won or lost a lawsuit brought by a creditor based upon what the debtor requested in a DV letter.

 

Stating that a debtor who doesn't request detailed verification might lose an opportunity later if sued to state you had done so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The value of going through the DV process is NOT to get them to prove anything.  It's to give them an opportunity to stumble over a line drawn in the sand.  It's so easy to NOT stumble, it tends to show you the stupidity level of this class of people (businesses) because so many fail to respond.

 

If they do respond, then pretty much no matter what they say, it's on to the next step (various options like disputing CR tradelines through the CRAs, sending a formal dispute letter to force them to include a dispute notation on CR info, telling them all phone calls are inconvenient, telling them you refuse to pay or to cease communicating, or even suing them or taking them to ARB).

 

Personally, I don't do a cease communication just so I can see how active they want to be, and harass them back by sending them letters that say things like "fire your skip tracer for doing such a bad job of tracking down the true debtor".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to my DV request, I received a copy of a seven month old credit card statement....that was it. 

 

Is this enough? Doesn't this CA need to show proof of debt ownership and something else? 

 

Do I reply and how?

"Is it enough" to avoid a successful lawsuit against the CA or a avoid forcing them to settle with you? Perhaps. But that would never be my primary concern. DV is very low cost discovery that can develop into a possible cause of action. Occasionally they may boot it down the road to another CA upon being DV'd burning a bit more SOL.

 

"Is it enough" is not a question I spend more that a fleeting moment on while determining if they need a 2nd DV letter, a C&D or perhaps an notice of arb election. There is typically going to be a bit of a gap between complying with the FDCPA text and the actual controlling case law in your jurisdiction. I often see clear compliance failures based on a simple reading of the FDCPA. Even if the case law is not adverse to your cause of action a good consumer attorney might not take the case because it is a steep uphill fight to prove your case despite the statute and controlling law.

 

DV is not a shield from lawsuits. DV is not a magic weapon to generate winnable statutory lawsuits. DV is a good tool when expectations and goals are aligned. It can be a very good tool when not used with the absolute bare minimum required by law or too-long-letter kitchen sink approach. I would want to target the CA specifically based on what they send me with and eye toward developing intel, allowing them to stumble (as mentioned) and controlling arb election, C&D timing etc.

 

...

The purpose of validation is to make sure the wrong person isn't being dunned and that amount is correct.  Many courts, including circuit courts of appeals, have stated as much.  Anything beyond that falls into other areas of the FDCPA. 

...

Detailed verification is the purpose of the discovery process in a lawsuit.  Most CAs know good and well they don't have to provide what you suggested in response to a DV letter.  They also know they don't have to give a reason for not providing the requested items in response to the DV.

...

 

Most CA's also know good and well how to avoid violating the law but then we see class actions and other suits prevail against them. I suppose they just can't help themselves. :)

 

I think that the dunning letters we receive are instructive. The purpose of the CA letter should be to simply attempt to collect a valid debt from the right party. I have not seen a dunning letter yet that limited itself to the law or bare essentials of that purpose. Instead they tend to threaten, deceive, skirt the law, violate the law, or push the limit on what they are allowed to do or say. They do it all the time. Why? Because it works. I would want to go forth and do likewise (within reason, the limits of the law and common sense). Some of these clowns cross the line and get adverse class action suit settlements due to stupid behavior THAT is not where I would want to go. But, to limit myself to a solo DV letter of single purpose (FDCPA violations) copied from a short generic template I would view as lacking creativity and forgoing a sweet opportunity in the narrow niche known as DV letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few years back In a validation letter I received from a JDB this was all it said : "Chaudhry vs Gallerizzo " (4th District) it's sufficient to state XYZ is bank and 123 is the amount.

 

I fired off " Because the information provided is insufficient to evaluate your claim , this alleged account still remains in dispute" Don't call me, write only !

  • Like 1

Share this post


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