Jump to content

Should I DV???


Recommended Posts

I got an actual "dunning" letter from another JDB on my CRs (of course!), and I was wondering what I should DO as far as DVing them:

 

They are a "Law Office" acting on behalf of the JDB, but they also state "At this time, we are operating only as a debt collector and not in any legal capacity".

 

The letter states the usual DC wording (unless you answer in 30 days, the debt is valid....blah blah blah).

 

The balance is $3XXX.XX.

 

The JDB is NCEP, LLC Assignee of OC, Inc

 

The SOL is up in 5/2014.

 

This letter was sent to my CORRECT address.....and it's the first letter I've received from them that I know of.  Although, NCEP is on my CRs as owning this since 12/2012.

 

The OC charged-off in 2/2012.

 

 

I am leaning heavily towards wanting to send the DV letter.....AND I want to use the words from an NC court case that @BV80 linked in my other thread..... :-)

"...I am disputing the entire amount of $6,260.76. I do not know who you are or who Unifund CCR Partners are and I do not owe them any monies. Should you have a document with my signature on it stating that I owe them money please forward it to me so I can have my attorney examine it and decide what legal action needs to be taken"

 

I know some say it's dangerous to send DVs this close to the SOL, but the letter clearly says unless I notify them in writing that I dispute, they will "assume this debt is valid".....isn't it dangerous to NOT dispute?

 

 

I would appreciate any thoughts!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you are so close to the SOL I would lay low and wait it out. It is true sending a DV will protect some of your rights under the FDCPA. The problem is that it lets them know that you are alive and where you live. A lot of times JDBs/CAs are just guessing. 

Whoever "owns" the debt may sue you either way. I just wouldn't help them do their job by verifying where you live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It is true sending a DV will protect some of your rights under the FDCPA.

 

I've seen this mentioned many times. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the FDCPA and am wondering what rights are protected if you do a DV?

I've always thought that DV was pretty useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this mentioned many times. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the FDCPA and am wondering what rights are protected if you do a DV?

I've always thought that DV was pretty useless.

I would say a DV letter preserves my ability to more realistically pursue a remedy when some of my rights under the FDCPA are violated. The DV letter sets a "tripwire" that makes it a bit easier to prove up a violation of the statute, such as collection attempts after failing to "validate" the debt.

 

I have a copy of a check that proves that a DV letter is not "useless". :-)

 

I have read online posts that indicate some posters seem to have the mistaken impression that a DV letter has magical powers. I have not seen evidence that a DV letter can either reliably prevent or trigger the filing of a collection lawsuit. I have been sued shortly after sending a DV letter and shortly after a DC attorney dunning letter w/o sending them a DV letter.

 

From my experience, I cannot say that sending or not sending a DV letter is "dangerous". It isn't that big of a deal.

 

If I received a dunning letter, at my correct address, from a DC attorney, and I knew their entire business is based on collecting money from people by either filing a suit or threatening to sue, I would speculate they probably know when the SOL runs and would conduct themselves accordingly. YMMV

 

If similarly situated *I* would send a DV letter because *I* expect most DC attorneys that dun me to sue me. Not being concerned about a lawsuit filing that I cannot prevent, I send my custom and targeted DV letter via CMRRR, set the tripwire and target my letter to specific items of interest in their dunning letter. I am attempting to produce a reply with more information beyond the bare legal requirements of the FDCPA (or state statute where applicable). Sometime is works.

 

A custom DV letter is also an opportunity for a C&D (if desired) and poking those (non-attorney CAs or possibly out of state DC attorneys) that are not properly licensed collection agencies in my state.

 

I don't view a custom DV letter as a laundry list of items outside the requirements of the FDCPA nor something to be limited to a one line dispute. It is a custom response to the dunning letter that triggers the minimal requirements of the FDCPA and it may produce some useful information. I treat it as kind of an informal pre-discovery lite that is optional for the DC to respond to. I find that they occasionally want to showboat or attempt to scare the consumer and they provide way more information than they probably should and I am OK with that.

 

To DV or not is easy for me. I suggest others use their best judgment and suggest it is best not to ask a DV letter to do more than it can. They're only paper and ink/toner after all. ;-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this mentioned many times. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the FDCPA and am wondering what rights are protected if you do a DV?

I've always thought that DV was pretty useless.

 

I talked about this with an active FDCPA attorney a couple of years ago and he also had mixed feelings about it. He basically said it may help to build a future FDCPA case, assuming the collector commits violations and the consumer is willing to file the complaint. He was not as caught up in the 30 day limit as many here.

 

He also said what many here have said and I have found out from experience. When you send it they will more than likely go away or file suit. Some are not willing to file suit until they are 100% sure where you are located. That is why I would be very careful sending one so close to the SOL. They realize the clock is ticking and might only be fishing at this point. 

 

While he didn't give me a clear answer on sending the DV he did stress one thing. He told me if I send a DV to make it as short and simple as possible. "I dispute this and require validation" Nothing more and nothing less. He told me the more you write the more likely you are to screw up and the same goes for them. Let them do all the talking and writing.

 

"He who knows most speaks less"

 

“It is better to conceal one's knowledge than to reveal one's ignorance”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

If I received a dunning letter, at my correct address, from a DC attorney, and I knew their entire business is based on collecting money from people by either filing a suit or threatening to sue, I would speculate they probably know when the SOL runs and would conduct themselves accordingly. YMMV...

This is pretty much the way I see it, I would assume lawsuit is on their mind anyway. A good DV letter (for me this is simple > only asks for validation and OC name & address) may let them know I'm on top of my stuff when it comes to the FDCPA & defending against collectors, maybe they'll make a business decision to pass this one over. Out of several DV letters I sent out last summer, one earned a response of "...after review, we are closing this file and deleting any trade lines we may have created..." The others resulted in a stoppage of the phone calls (I included a cease & desist instruction to stop phone calls and communicate only via letter in all of them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...I am disputing the entire amount of $6,260.76. I do not know who you are or who Unifund CCR Partners are and I do not owe them any monies. Should you have a document with my signature on it stating that I owe them money please forward it to me so I can have my attorney examine it and decide what legal action needs to be taken"

 

I know some say it's dangerous to send DVs this close to the SOL, but the letter clearly says unless I notify them in writing that I dispute, they will "assume this debt is valid".....isn't it dangerous to NOT dispute?

 

 

I would appreciate any thoughts!

...monies, "I do not owe you any dimes, nickels, pennies, quarters, half dollars, silver dollars, one dollar bills, twenty dollar bills, hundred dollar bills, euros, yen, francs..."

 

Seriously, in my opinion unless you really think you can catch them sending another letter or calling you before answering the debt validation letter you are doing more potential harm to yourself than helping your case.  Why let them know that the letter even got to you?  Some here will say that just receiving such a letter will fend them off but that is very rare.  Just by sending the letter they are actually following FDCPA guidelines as opposed to probably 50% of JDB's that don't even send a dunning letter before they sue you.  It is part of the process leading up to suing you so if you send the DV letter you are actually making it easier for them to find you.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, my 2 cents....actually more like $8.72 with as much as I talk...

 

First, you are not saving yourself from anything by not sending a DV.  Let's face it--often times, JDBs will sue you and intentionally serve at an address you have no connection to anyways, to try to get a default.  Or, they will sue with only an old address on purpose and not care about getting the correct address, because service by publication allows them to get the default anyways.

 

Or better yet, they have access to your credit report, which will most likely have your correct address on it anyways.  You are NOT protecting yourself from a lawsuit by ignoring that dunning letter. 

 

Second, someone mentioned that they are following FDCPA guidelines when they send the initial dunning letter.  They are not.  The letter that they must send is the notification of rights, not "this is our first contact with you, we now own this debt, pay us".  Also, they do not have to send you that letter prior to suing, and this has been well established that they can sue you without prior communication taking place.  There is no FDCPA requirement that they contact you before suing.  They could sue you without ever contacting you, then send you a notification of rights in the mail after you are served, and still be in compliance with the FDCPA.

 

Third, they do not need your response to this letter to sue you.  They can sue you all the same if you ignore it.  It happens every day, and we see plenty of people posting in here that they have been sued and that they did ignore previous letters from the JDB or attorney. 

 

"Why let them know that the letter even got to you?".....this is a myth.  The standard that has always applied is not "whether or not their letter gets to you", but instead "whether or not they have a system in place to send such letters".  They do not ever need to prove that their letter got to you, so relying upon that will not help you in any situation.  We are seeing plenty of cases on this forum where people have been sued without ever hearing from the plaintiff before the lawsuit, and the plaintiff always claims that they "sent defendant demand for payment but defendant did not reply".  As I said before, their decision to sue or not to sue has nothing to do with whether or not their letter gets in your hands.

 

Something else I noticed--it is not smart to include a C&D IMO with a DV letter.  The debt collector sees your cease and desist and at that moment they are not allowed to respond to your DV request.  Once they get a C&D, they are only allowed to send you communication that tells what their next planned action will be.  They are not able to contact you with any further collection attempts.  Let's think about this now--

 

1--you send a DV.

2--they know they must validate in order to legally continue collection efforts.

3--you also sent a C&D in the DV letter, which stops all collection communications.

 

Why would they bother?  Who is going to expend the effort needed to answer a DV when you just invoked a clause that prevents them from collections communication?  A C&D is a good way to get some of these JDBs to simply sue you.  But back to the simpler issue--a C&D does not allow them to even provide a response to your DV request.  Go read the law itself, there are very few permitted communications once a C&D is received, and validation is not among those.  When you send a C&D clause in your DV, you are telling the debt collector, "send me validation" AND "do not contact me at all" at the same time.  Many debt collectors will not send anything simply because sending validation at that point can create an FDCPA violation.

 

By sending a C&D and a DV at the same time, you have wasted your time and money.

 

OK, about being so close to the SOL....this has no bearing on the issue at hand.  Let's not kid ourselves, the JDBs know when the SOL will expire.  They will sue before SOL expires, if they intend to sue, whether you respond or not.  They do not need, and will not wait for, you to validate your correct address by responding.  Scroll through the threads in this section, and you will see evidence of this.  And please, do not trust that disclosure, "we are only acting as a debt collector at this time" or whatever....there are only two reasons why a JDB sends an account to a law firm--it's either to create more urgency in the debtor because a "law firm" is calling, or to file suit. 

 

I would actually consider sending TWO DV letters, both by CMRRR.  One to the law firm and one to the JDB that hired the law firm.  Dont forget now, contracting a debt out to a law firm is collection activity.  Sending one to the law firm only puts the law firm on the hook for FDCPA issues....sending one to both parties can provide you with an actionable issue against both the JDB and the attorney.  You say the debt is around $3K....the more leverage you can build, the better chance you have of forcing them to deal more on your terms should it come to that.  But think LVNV--if you only send a DV to the law firm that's contacting you now, the JDB is still free to simply send the debt to some other DC law firm for more action.  That's how LVNV works--they have so many affiliated separate business names that if you send a DV to the one that contacts you, they simply move it to the next one.  It's a shell game.  But the JDB DV would only work if the JDB did not previously contact you themselves.  Anything beyond 30 days from initial contact and a DV wont stop them from doing anything or provide you with an actionable violation.

 

Finally, it is very important for you to research the people who contact you.  Here are two examples, both about this JDB....

 

http://www.fthebanks.net/2013/08/19/another-debt-bites-the-dust-9900-lawsuit-dismissed/

 

http://www.bbb.org/reno/business-reviews/collection-agencies/ncep-in-carson-city-nv-90016499/complaints#

 

Read the second complaint on that last link--the person disputed the debt, and NCEP ended up eating the debt.  In the first link, NCEP sued someone for three times the amount you are being contacted about....and their attorney dismissed right away because defendant showed up with a defense attorney and NCEP knew they had no proof.  NCEP refers to itself as a "passive debt buyer", they say that they do not perform any debt collection work of their own.  This may or may not be true, you should research them to find out.  But it helps to know who you are dealing with, so you can see what others have tried that works...and what has not worked as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, someone mentioned that they are following FDCPA guidelines when they send the initial dunning letter.  They are not.  The letter that they must send is the notification of rights, not "this is our first contact with you, we now own this debt, pay us".  Also, they do not have to send you that letter prior to suing, and this has been well established that they can sue you without prior communication taking place.  There is no FDCPA requirement that they contact you before suing.  They could sue you without ever contacting you, then send you a notification of rights in the mail after you are served, and still be in compliance with the FDCPA.

 

 "Why let them know that the letter even got to you?".....this is a myth.  The standard that has always applied is not "whether or not their letter gets to you", but instead "whether or not they have a system in place to send such letters".  They do not ever need to prove that their letter got to you, so relying upon that will not help you in any situation.  We are seeing plenty of cases on this forum where people have been sued without ever hearing from the plaintiff before the lawsuit, and the plaintiff always claims that they "sent defendant demand for payment but defendant did not reply".  As I said before, their decision to sue or not to sue has nothing to do with whether or not their letter gets in your hands.

Everything I said here is advice that I was given by a very good attorney who takes on JDB's all the time.  It's not so much that in order to sue they must send a letter, they must send the letter if they claim to have been assigned the debt whether or not they eventually sue.

 

If they are not required to send the letter then why do they include in their first set of request for admissions to admit that a dunning letter was received at least 30 days prior to the lawsuit being filed?  There is no other reason for them put that in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@texasrocker

 

 

Everything I said here is advice that I was given by a very good attorney who takes on JDB's all the time.  It's not so much that in order to sue they must send a letter, they must send the letter if they claim to have been assigned the debt whether or not they eventually sue.

 

If they are not required to send the letter then why do they include in their first set of request for admissions to admit that a dunning letter was received at least 30 days prior to the lawsuit being filed?  There is no other reason for them put that in there.

 

This is only the case if one's state law requires the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LisaDiane Hopefully you got some useful information from the opinions on this thread. As you can see after reading the replies their is no exact correct or incorrect answer. Most of the replies here are based on personal experience and even some advice from attorneys. The nice thing about CIC is that most of us try to help when we can. 

 

You will find that so many factors are involved that it is impossible to ever know if you will be sued. These are just a few that come to mind.

 

- Where you live. Not just the state, but the city/county. I would say the more creditor friendly courts get the highest percent of the cases.

 

- The CA/JDB involved. The larger ones use computer generated analytical models to determine the best odds. Some of the smaller ones simply sue based on the funds available for court fees.

 

- The law firm involved. Some sue on almost every account they receive while others are more selective. Once again this probably comes down to the size and amount of capital in their reserves.

 

- A consumer who has a recent credit activity such as other settled accounts. This could also include someone attempting to clean up their credit. 

 

-Evidence of a steady or new job activity may also trigger a lawsuit. 

 

-Although its not a guarantee being listed on a credit scrubbing list should help avoid litigation. 

 

I'm sure others here could add other factors that might be involved. In the end it might just come down to luck, so Good Luck! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I said here is advice that I was given by a very good attorney who takes on JDB's all the time.  It's not so much that in order to sue they must send a letter, they must send the letter if they claim to have been assigned the debt whether or not they eventually sue.

 

If they are not required to send the letter then why do they include in their first set of request for admissions to admit that a dunning letter was received at least 30 days prior to the lawsuit being filed?  There is no other reason for them put that in there.

What you are claiming simply has no provision within the FDCPA that discusses it.  In your earlier post you chalked this requirement up to "FDCPA guidelines".  This is simply not true and I merely pointed it out.  Also keep in mind that you are in Texas, and no other state has the same laws as yours does.  Texas has perhaps the best laws in the country for protecting consumers.  But again, that is not an "FDCPA guideline". 

 

You asked about why a debt collector would state in their case that they sent a letter demanding payment.  Could it be simply to claim to the court that they tried alternative means before suing?  JDBs do LOTS of things in courts and in cases that do not make sense or that are not legal.  Pointing to a JDB's action as evidence of some legal requirement is not going to work because so many JDBs ignore the laws anyways.  Case in point--MCM states this quite often when they sue someone.  Why would they bother trying to meet one minor condition, if the law required it, when they are routinely guilty of MAJOR violations like fabricating documents, robosigning, falsifying service, using a known wrong address, etc etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so there are not actually any "guidelines" to the FDCPA, I suppose it was just a term I was using to describe what I was trying to say- guidelines, rules, standards, whatever you want to call them...

 

One reason they could try to meet such a minor condition would be as an attempt to defer a counter suit filed with the defendant's answer.

They get away with major violations because most cases are won on default judgments and our judicial system is so screwed up that if the defendant is not savvy enough to bring them up and object to them then the court can't do anything about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

To DV or not is easy for me. I suggest others use their best judgment and suggest it is best not to ask a DV letter to do more than it can.

...

Only once have I chosen to not send a DV letter via CMRRR. (I did not take the CA seriously and did not deem them worth spending $5).

  • The CA responded with an OC statement or two.
  • I did some homework and found that they had a consent order or the like in their not too distant past. I also knew of an arb clause. L E V E R A G E - don't engage an opponent without it!
  • I collected a check from the CA based on arguing to their in-house attorney that they had failed to validate the debt.
  • I doubt a  competent consumer attorney would ever recommend an alleged debtor even attempt to do what I successfully did.
  • Having no concern (in this particular situation) that I would be sued, my costs and risks were a 1st class mail DV letter and a phone call.

An alleged debtor "target" with nothing to lose and serious righteous indignation, that persistently applies intelligent engaged action, would be my worst litigation nightmare as a DC attorney (there is WAY too much low hanging fruit out there). A sharp winning consumer attorney would know when they have won and would be likely to properly recommend accepting a favorable quick settlement to their client. A target as described herein, without representation, may be crazy enough to want to pursue a jury trial.

 

What *I* believe is the most important thing in the psychological war known as collections (I rarely, if ever, do what I believe to be impossible). YMMV,  but I would bet that what most people believe will control their actions and limit what they can actually accomplish.

 

With so many factors outside of my control, a DV letter distills down to simply a responsive communication to a dunning letter that I received at my address. My treating it as such has served me well.

 

If this thread proves anything, I believe it is proof that it is possible to over think a DV letter. I simply ask for a few items that I want (while triggering the minimal FDCPA validation requirements). Others are free to do as they wish or as their attorney advises.

 

It appears that there is a significant difference between how a DC attorney (with a bar card in my state) is likely to respond to a custom and targeted DV letter (extra info not required by FDCPA) and how a CA is likely to respond (bare minimum of the FDCPA requirements). I believe this is likely because DC law firms that are ready and able to sue me want to intimidate me so I cough up money and settle before they need to file a suit against me (they have no issue filing a suit as it is just the cost of "doing business").

 

The same responsive letter I might send (asking for what I want) to a DC attorney does not appear to have any down side when sent to a CA.

 

Other than wishing them well and that they make the right decision for themselves, I have no horse in the OP's race regarding their sending/not sending a DV letter or what content they use/don't use. Aside from proving an exception to the consensus thinking, the OP's results are just one data point with multiple variables not applied. I would not see the OP's results as providing any reliable guidance to myself or others. It is just one person's experience, the same as my own.

 

The OP's question, "Should I DV?" causes me to think of the answer to the old joke, "What do you get when you cross an elephant and a rhino?" Answer: Elephino!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are GREAT points!!!

 

 

@ArtVandelay, I DEFINITELY got tons of useful information -- even what goes beyond my original question!

 

And I found the links that @kraftykrab posted to be VERY interesting, especially the BBB website of complaints.

 

 

Thanks for all the answers -- I'm so amazed at how much all of you "non-attorneys" know about this stuff! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In direct opposition to the short DV theory I must relate my experiences.

I have sent three DV letters to two different CA's.

The first, sent to Midland resulted in a return letter apologizing for bothering me and a promise not to bother me again about the alleged debt.

The second, sent to BofA, resulted in the CA filing suit in which I elected arbitration and they dismissed. They hired another CA and I DV'd them also (the third); haven't heard from them in over a year.

 

This is the letter that I sent:

 

****************************************

 

Sir or Madam:

You are in receipt of notice under the authority of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act regarding your file #XXXXXXX. It is not now, nor has it ever been my intention to avoid paying any obligation that I lawfully owe.

In order that I can make arrangements to pay an obligation which I may owe, please document and verify the “debt” by complying in good faith with this request for validation and notice that I dispute part of, or all of the alleged debt.

 

1. Please furnish a copy of the original promissory note redacting my social security number to prevent identify theft and state under penalty of perjury that your client named above is the holder in due course of the promissory note and will produce the original for my own and a judge’s inspection should there be a trial to contest these matters.

2. Please produce the account and general ledger statement showing the full accounting of the alleged obligation that you are now attempting to collect.

3. Please identify by name and address all persons, corporations, associations, or any other parties having an interest in legal proceedings regarding the alleged debt.

4. Please verify under penalty of perjury, that as a debt collector, you have not purchased evidence of debt and are proceeding with collection activity in the name of the original maker of the note.

5. Please verify under penalty of perjury that you know and understand that certain clauses in a contract of adhesion, such as a so-called forum selection clause, are unenforceable unless the party to whom the contract is extended could have rejected the clause without impunity.

6. Please verify under penalty of perjury that you know and understand that credit card contracts are a series of continuing offers to contract and as such are nontransferable.

7. Please provide verification from the stated creditor that you are authorized to act for them.

 

 

 In compliance with Michigan Occupational Code Act 299 Section 339.918 (2) your are put on notice that “If the consumer notifies the collection agency in writing, within 30 days after receiving the written notice, that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed, collection of the debt or any disputed portion of the debt shall cease until the collection agency obtains verification of the debt and a copy of the verification or judgment is mailed to the consumer by the collection agency. Verification of the debt or any disputed portion of the debt shall include the number and amount of previously made payments and the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor, or a copy of the judgment against the debtor.”

and:

 

Michigan Occupational Code Act 299 Section 339.918 (3) States:
“The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section shall not be construed as an admission of liability by the consumer.

 

 Please verify that you know and understand that contacting me again after receipt of this notice without providing procedurally proper validation of the debt constitutes the use of interstate communications in a scheme of fraud by advancing a writing, which you know is false with the intention that others rely on the written communication to their detriment.
 

I also request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices to my home or to my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls or correspondence sent to any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter.

 

Be advised that I am fully aware of my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I am keeping records of all correspondence from you and your company, including recording all phone calls, and I will not hesitate to report violations of the law to the appropriate legal authorities.

 

This is an attempt to correct your records; any information obtained shall be used for that purpose.

 

***********************************************

 

In Michigan, we do have state law (Michigan Occupational Code) that specifically refers to how a CA must validate a debt. YMMV.

Edited by Savoir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your experience is a bit unique compared to what many I have spoken to have found. 

 

Often, it seems, the more we try to tell the JDB about the FDCPA in this letter, the less they pay attention.  I personally find no value in telling the debt collector all about what the laws say in a DV letter--they should know them already.  You can accomplish the same thing by saying something like:

 

"With regard to the above identified account, this letter shall serve as notice that I hereby dispute your claims of indebtedness, in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Since you are receiving this letter within thirty days of your initial contact regarding this matter, it is expected that you will abide by all conditions as set forth in the FDCPA.  Please provide proper written validation to me at the address below. 

 

Should you decide not to abide by the FDCPA's validation requirements, I will have no choice but to take further action, including litigation, to protect my rights under the law.  Your cooperation is appreciated."

 

Of course, you also have your state's law, where in my state, we rely on the FDCPA itself.  I'm not trying to say that you are wrong or anything, just that in my experience, the longer you make this letter, the more chance you have of it being ignored and thrown in the circular file.  If you want a DV to actually serve its purpose, I prefer keeping it simple.  A JDB should know the laws, and if they do not, I'm happy to educate them in court if they insist on doing things the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FDCPA does not require that a consumer educate a debt collector about the law, nor do I know of any state law that makes such a requirement.  It is the debt collector's responsibility to know and follow both federal and state law when sending out dunning letters and in any actions taken after receiving a DV request.

 

Here's the DV request I've sent out in the past:  I always included a copy of the dunning letter with my DV request.

 

Date

 

BV80

Address

 

Debt Collector

Address

 

RE:  Debt Collectors Account #

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from your company on___________________ (date I received their letter).  I dispute the alleged debt and request validation.

 

BV80

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I have always sent a DV letter. Short and sweet.

 

Your File Number ABC123

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

This debt is in dispute. 

 

Please provide validation.

 

(If they have been calling my cell phone) If I have ever given permission to call my cell phone, that permission is rescinded. Any and all phone calls at any time to any number are inconvenient.

 

My correct mailing address is: MY PLACE.

 

(I do NOT want them to be able to successfully argue that by taking away the right to call me, I am telling them to C and D, if the debt is within the SOL. If not, I AM telling them to FOAD.)

 

Sincerely,

 

Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always include a copy of  the dunning letter. It makes sense since I will be referencing items in that letter in my targeted and custom DV letter.

 

As long as a party is getting the benefits they wish to achieve by sending a short DV letter they should continue to do so. The FDCPA doesn't restrict me to a very brief letter so I use what works for me that has provided cash and leverage for the price of a CMRRR.

 

...
If you want a DV to actually serve its purpose, I prefer keeping it simple.
...

I want a DV letter to serve my purpose. I have no idea what "its purpose" would be and whether any two people would even agree as to what "its" actual purpose is.

 

When I am getting the results I want, I go with rinse and repeat.

When failing to get the results I desire I will study and learn and then adapt and improvise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always include a copy of  the dunning letter. It makes sense since I will be referencing items in that letter in my targeted and custom DV letter.

 

As long as a party is getting the benefits they wish to achieve by sending a short DV letter they should continue to do so. The FDCPA doesn't restrict me to a very brief letter so I use what works for me that has provided cash and leverage for the price of a CMRRR.

 

I want a DV letter to serve my purpose. I have no idea what "its purpose" would be and whether any two people would even agree as to what "its" actual purpose is.

 

When I am getting the results I want, I go with rinse and repeat.

When failing to get the results I desire I will study and learn and then adapt and improvise.

I dont see where anyone told you not to continue what you are doing.  Your post sounds a bit defensive.  Let me assure you, I am not attacking you in any way.  I'm glad that yours has worked for you.  I was simply pointing out that you can say the exact same thing with a lot less wording.  Also, some JDBs will not act favorably in response to someone trying to tell them what the law says they must do--they are the ones who do this every day and they should know better.  My other purpose for not going into all that detail in a DV is so that I do not show all my cards early on.  If they violate the law, they will definitely know about it when they receive my summons or counterclaim.

 

I would like to know, though, what your purpose is for a DV.  This would be an interesting discussion, as so many people who are new to this arena search out the massive DV online that asks for a ton of things that the FDCPA does not require a JDB to send, and there is a lot of confusion among rookies as to the actual reason to send a DV.  I've seen people send one when they are already in over their head and they get buried....and sending that internet template DV letter tips the JDB off that they are dealing with a rookie.

 

your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 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.