Past 30 day period?

[jbennett]

I'm currently helping my partner with a collections account with Client Services Inc. that we attempted debt validation with. Unfortunately I didn't fully brief my partner on the strategy, so the letter was not sent as certified mail, nor do we have a copy of it, or even know the exact date sent. Also, the notice we responded to doesn't specifically state that it was the first notice, nor does it mention anything about a 30 day right to have the debt validated. Do first notices always contain this info? It's also a settlement offer, which I assume wouldn't be their first notice.. Should we assume it's not the first notice and that our attempt at debt validation was no longer within the allowed period? Even if this isn't the case, considering our lack of proof that the letter was sent, I'm guessing we have no chance of successfully using the debt validation method at this point - correct?

 

The CA hasn't responded... I was planning to counter their settlement offer next, but I was just hoping for confirmation that this is the best route...

 

Thanks very much in advance.

 

Jared 

[1stStep]

Initial letters are supposed to contain a "mini-Miranda" giving you thirty days to demand validation of the alleged debt. However, the clock begins once the letter is received in your hand - which is why in my letters, I always put the date the letter was received. 

 

Some initial letters also give you the opportunity to settle as well... it really depends on the CA/JDB that's attempting to collect from you. 

[wagonwheel1]

I have a follow up question to this, I was going to start a new thread but maybe you can answer it 1stStep.

 

What if the CA sends a person a dunning notice that does NOT comply with 1692(g), namely it doesn't notify you of the amount of time you have to respond, and what your other legal rights are under 1692(g) of the FDCPA. That's the 'mini-miranda':I think you are referring to above?

 

"a) Notice of debt; contents Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing - (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor."

 

What I'm interested in is if the dunning letter is missing 3,4 and 5 from the above, what should a person do? Are they already in violation of the FDCPA by not sending out a notice that complies with 1692(g) and if so, should I even send them a DV letter? 

 

Thanks

[BV80]

@wagonwheel1

 

Only the very first dunning letter is supposed to contain the language in 1692g.  Any letter after that only has to state that it's an attempt to collect a debt which is found in 1692e(11).