BV80

USELESS AND BASELESS VALIDATION REQUEST

Recommended Posts

The following "validation" letter has been floating around cyberspace for years.  Once in a while, it might work, and a debt collector will no longer contact the consumer.  However, any debt collector who knows just a little bit about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) knows that the information and requests in the letter are NOT supported by either law or court rulings.  

DO NOT SEND THIS LETTER!  Anyone who suggests you send that letter does not understand the FDCPA and has not researched court rulings.  

 

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on ___________(the date the consumer received the collection letter). Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (B) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested.

This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you.

Please provide me with the following:

1)-What the money you say I owe is for;
2)-Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;
3)-Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;
4)-Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;
5)-Identify the original creditor;
6)-Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account
7)-Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state
8)-Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent

At this time I will also inform you that if your offices have reported invalidated information to any of the 3 major Credit Bureau’s (Equifax, Experian or TransUnion) this action might constitute fraud under both Federal and State Laws. Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found on any of my credit reports by your company or the company that you represent I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following:

Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Defamation of Character

If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested in the following Declaration, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all collection activity must cease and desist.

Also during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with my legal counsel for suit. This includes any listing any information to a credit reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated or verifying an account as accurate when in fact there is no provided proof that it is.

If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

I would also like to 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 and calls or correspondence sent to or with 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 by USPS.

It would be advisable that you assure that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose.


Best Regards,
Your Signature
Your Name


1.  "This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on ___________(the date the consumer received the collection letter)."

1692g of the FDCPA states that a consumer must send a request for validation within 30 days of receiving an initial communication.  An initial communication.  An initial communication is usually the first debt collection letter which should contain the 30-day validation notice.

15 U.S.C. 1692g(a) of the FDCPA

(a) Notice of debt; contentsWithin 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.

Notice that (3) states the consumer must dispute the validity of the debt "within thirty days after receipt of the notice".  If you send the your validation letter after 30 days, the debt collector does not have to respond and does not have to validate the debt.  Even if you were to send the letter within 30 days, the debt collector could choose to cease collection efforts and not respond.

2.  "This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you."

That's an unnecessary statement.  1692g of the FDCPA does not differentiate between "verification" and "validation".  Again, this is proof that the author of the letter and anyone who recommends the letter has not done one iota of research.

3.  In regard to the 8 items requested, only (4) and (5) are required by the FDCPA.  Not one court has ruled that the rest of the items are required to validate a debt.  Go to the following link and read Myths #4 and #5 which includes court rulings.

https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/328187-fdcpa-debt-validation-myths/

4.  "At this time I will also inform you that if your offices have reported invalidated information to any of the 3 major Credit Bureau’s (Equifax, Experian or TransUnion) this action might constitute fraud under both Federal and State Laws."

The above is incredibly ridiculous.  "if your offices have reported invalidated information".  How can information currently being reported be considered "invalidated" when you haven't requested validation yet?

5.  "Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found on any of my credit reports by your company or the company that you represent I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following:

Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Defamation of Character"

Debt collectors are allowed to report information to the credit reporting agencies before ever contacting you.  Since you haven't yet requested validation, the above is an empty threat.   No law requires or court has ruled that a debt collector must notify you before reporting information to credit reporting agencies.   In the event you request validation, a debt collector only has to report that the debt is disputed and cannot update the information until the debt is validated.

6.  "If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested in the following Declaration, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all collection activity must cease and desist."

The requirement that you be allowed 30 days to investigate the information is not mentioned anywhere in the FDCPA or in court rulings.  As soon as the debt is validated, a debt collector is allowed to continue collection efforts.

The debt collector may resume collection activities only when it has obtained verification of the debt, and has mailed a copy of the verification to the consumer." Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial Services, Inc., 516 F.3d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 2008).

Section 1692g(b) gives a debt collector "a choice: it either may choose not to verify the debt and abandon its collection efforts, or it may decide to verify the debt and resume the collection activities once the requested validation has been provided. Purnell v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 303 Fed. Appx. 297, 304 (6th Cir. 2008).

7.  If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

As with the rest of the letter, the above is not correct.   The FDCPA does not demand that a debt collector validate a debt within 30 days of receiving your request.  The 30-day requirement is placed upon consumers to send a validation request after receiving an initial communication from a debt collector.

Anyone who recommends sending that letter or anything similar should be avoided because that person has no idea about validation and what is required by the FDCPA.   In fact, you should be wary of any advice offered by that person.  The failure to research something as basic as the FDCPA could indicate that he has failed to research laws and court rulings that support any advice he provides.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80  I, in no way, have any kind of a legal background.  I have come here for advice many times in the past.  I have been reading up on the Encore Consent Order recently, and I found a paragraph in it that relates to this topic.

 

Failing to Adequately Investigate Disputes

126. In numerous instances, Encore failed to conduct reasonable investigations

of Consumer disputes under the FCRA for accounts that had not been disputed within 45

days of Encore sending the Consumer a Notice of Debt under Section 809 of the FDCP A.

127. The acts or practices alleged in Paragraph 126 constitute violations of

Sections 623(a)(8)(E) and (b)(1)(A) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) and (b).

 

This is a violation that was reported in the Consent Order.  The way I read this is that someone may, at any time, dispute the debt owed and request validation.  I have not investigated this, but it seems to me as if the FDCPA does have a 30 day time limit, but if the debt has been reported there is no time limit at all.  Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, cshot37 said:

@BV80  I, in no way, have any kind of a legal background.  I have come here for advice many times in the past.  I have been reading up on the Encore Consent Order recently, and I found a paragraph in it that relates to this topic.

 

Failing to Adequately Investigate Disputes

126. In numerous instances, Encore failed to conduct reasonable investigations

of Consumer disputes under the FCRA for accounts that had not been disputed within 45

days of Encore sending the Consumer a Notice of Debt under Section 809 of the FDCP A.

127. The acts or practices alleged in Paragraph 126 constitute violations of

Sections 623(a)(8)(E) and (b)(1)(A) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) and (b).

 

This is a violation that was reported in the Consent Order.  The way I read this is that someone may, at any time, dispute the debt owed and request validation.  I have not investigated this, but it seems to me as if the FDCPA does have a 30 day time limit, but if the debt has been reported there is no time limit at all.  Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this

 

1692g(a) and (b) of the FDCPA are specific in that a consumer must request validation within 30 days of an initial communication.   There are multitudes of court rulings to support that section of the Act.  

Requesting validation of a debt after receiving an initial communication and disputing information in one's credit report are 2 different things.

#127 states that the failure to conduct adequate disputes constitutes a violation of the FCRA, not the FDCPA.   Notice that it references 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) and (b) of the FCRA. 

Here is 1681s-2(a)(8)(E).

(E) Duty of person after receiving notice of disputeAfter receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall—

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person’s investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 1681i(a)(1) of this title within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate

 
The first line of subparagraph (E) references "a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D).   Here is subparagraph D.
 
(D) Submitting a notice of dispute A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that—

(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;

(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and

(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

Subparagraph D says that you have to identify the information on your credit report that is being disputed and must include a basis for your dispute. 

Now, go back to subparagraph E.  Nowhere in that subparagraph does it state that a debt collector must send documentation to a consumer in order to verify the information being reported.

The deceptive letter is a response to a notice received from the debt collector and is requesting validation of a debt. 

Notice the deceptive letter does not state that any information has been reported to the CRAs.  It only state "if" information has been reported.  That means the consumer doesn't know if information is being reported or not.  In the event information is being reported, simply stating "if" information is being reported is not a proper dispute of that information contained in your credit report. 

In addition, as was pointed out by @Harry Seaward, the courts can enforce the Consent Order.  Consumers do not have a private right of action to enforce that Order.  (See #193 of the Order)

And, again, in the event information is being reported, you would have identify the specific reported information that your disputing.  The deceptive letter doesn't do that.

The 45 days referred to in #126 is one provided by the FCRA, not the FDCPA.

Also note that the Consent Order references both 1681s-2(a) and 1681s-2(b).  I quoted s-2(a).   There is no private right of action under s-2(a) for refusing to correct inaccurate information. (See 1681s-2(c) of the FCRA)

1681s-2(b) is different.  S-2(b) requires you to disputed with the CRAs.   In order to have a private right of action for inaccurately reported information, you MUST dispute that inaccurate information with the CRAs.  If the debt collector verifies that inaccurate information, you'd have a cause of action under the FCRA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good information to debunk that ridiculous letter.

If anyone is curious as to what they should send any collector to validate a debt, I always suggest the following:

"I dispute this alleged debt.  Please validate".

That short and simple line contains everything that the FDCPA requires of a consumer in order to obtain validation.  In fact, it contains EXTRA info, as simply the word "dispute" in regards to any debt is enough to trigger a validation under the FDCPA language.  However, just to eliminate any doubt as to what you are asking, I also include the request to validate in addition to my written notice of dispute.

Also, it is always wise when dealing with a collector, to say only what is relevant to preserve your rights under the law and nothing else.  Everyone knows that "talking" to police or prosecutors in any criminal investigation without an attorney is very unwise and you should treat a collector in the same manor.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in [civil] court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the low bar for validation (every collection letter I have ever received already contains complete validation information), I recommend not bothering. Literally the only thing requesting validation does is tell them that they found the debtor they are seeking. Think about it - how many people do you meet in a typical day that have a clue what any of this means? Far and away, the most likely person to request debt validation is someone who got a letter for a debt they know they defaulted on and came to a site like this for answers.

As a debt buyer , I'd immediately prioritize every account that requested validation for prompt litigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Considering the low bar for validation (every collection letter I have ever received already contains complete validation information), I recommend not bothering. Literally the only thing requesting validation does is tell them that they found the debtor they are seeking. Think about it - how many people do you meet in a typical day that have a clue what any of this means? Far and away, the most likely person to request debt validation is someone who got a letter for a debt they know they defaulted on and came to a site like this for answers.

As a debt buyer , I'd immediately prioritize every account that requested validation for prompt litigation.

Requesting validation can buy time for a consumer.  If a consumer requests validation before a lawsuit has been filed by a JDB, it cannot file suit until it validates the debt.

In addition, you have the possibility of violations that would provide a counterclaim if a lawsuit is filed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be shocked to see a violation during the validation process in this day and age. They don't exist anymore.

And since the initial communication already contains everything required to validate, they can just send the same letter the instant DV arrives.

But, to each his own. I'd rather they wonder if the address they have on file is an empty lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

And since the initial communication already contains everything required to validate, they can just send the same letter the instant DV arrives.

No, they can't just send the same letter.   That would be nothing more than "because we say so".  What if the debt collector demands $2000, but the debt is only $1000?   If repeating the information in the initial communication served to validate the debt, a consumer could end up paying more than he should have to pay.

1692g(a) states that an initial communication must contain the name of current creditor and the amount of the debt.  If all a debt collector has to do is resend the information in the initial communication, why would 1692g(b) state that a debt collector must cease collections until it validates a debt in response to a timely dispute?  It says a debt collector must provide "a copy of such verification." Obviously, it means that providing the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt is not enough to validate.

(b) Disputed debts

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.

If you read court rulings regarding validation, the debt collectors always provide more than the information in the initial communication.  They provide a credit card statement or a printout of charges.  It gives the consumer something to go by.

A decision from the Eighth Circuit confirms that the verification requirement is satisfied where the debtor "could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2011).

The purpose of the verification requirement is to enable the consumer to sufficiently dispute the payment obligation. Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, 758 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2014).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be an odd case, but every collection letter I have ever received contains all the elements required for DV. OC, amount sought, etc. I understand that now they go overboard and send statements, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

I may be an odd case, but every collection letter I have ever received contains all the elements required for DV. OC, amount sought, etc. I understand that now they go overboard and send statements, etc.

Every collection letter I've received also contains that information.  That's what is required to be in the initial communication.   (See 1692g(a)) But that's not enough to confirm that the amount claimed is the amount owed. 

That's why 1692g(b) exists.  Debt collectors have to go beyond the information in the initial communication in order to validate.  If they didn't have to do go beyond that information, 1692g(b) would not be necessary.  Again, Congress included 1692g(b) for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

I would be shocked to see a violation during the validation process in this day and age. They don't exist anymore.

And since the initial communication already contains everything required to validate, they can just send the same letter the instant DV arrives.

But, to each his own. I'd rather they wonder if the address they have on file is an empty lot.

The violations with validation letter are much fewer, this is true.  However, I am a big proponent of using every consumer right you have to help achieve the best outcome you can get.  Yes, it is a low bar, but it is still a bar.  People can accidentally trip over a bar even when they know it is there. If the law allows me to dispute and forces the collector to stop collecting until they validate, why would you not use that?  There are potential violations where they might still call you before responding to your dispute letter.  They may (and we have seen recently, even) sue you without responding to your dispute letter.  That "continued collection activity" without sending a DV first is good leverage to use to fight back, if needed.

Additionally, they may change the amount.  Here is a good example that actually happened to me:  I received the initial dunning from a law office.  I sent a dispute.  They responded with a validation letter that listed an amount larger than the initial dunning letter.  I called (recorded) and asked why the amount was different and they told me that court costs were now added because they are filing suit.  Two things went wrong here:  They added court costs (the filing fee amount) before ever being awarded those costs by a court, which means it wasn't owed to them at this point, and second, they added costs to something that had not yet happened (they waited a few days for me to receive validation before filing the case in court).  Just on that violation alone, I was able to get a free attorney to get them to dismiss everything with prejudice.

Sure, most large JDBs run a slightly tighter ship now days, but mistakes still happen, employees cut corners and the smaller  JDBs may still be operating on the notion that intentional violations (like the one I mention above) still pays off greater because over 90% of consumers don't know and/or don't care.  I would much rather make them take every step I can force them to take just to make sure - and potentially trip them up - than to just sit back and assume because I couldn't pay my credit card 4 years ago that this JDB must be 100% correct and on the up and up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is too much money and too many regulations involved to leave this in the hands of humans - all of this is automated to the point where bonafide violations are non-existent. Anyone who thinks the odds of getting a violation outweigh letting them know that they found a live debtor at a current address, then, by all means, send up a flare! An obvious exception is where you KNOW, 100%, that the collection letter is in error - like you never had a credit card, or you have documentation from paying off and closing a card. I've seen cases where a DV helps a debt buyer connect the dots and purge those bad records. (And I totally agree with checking amounts - especially as they are reported. FCRA claims are your friends, as Mr. Cheese helped me discover, much to Cavalry's chagrin.)

Please remember - this is a legitimate business and not some back-alley scam. The Midland's of the world are more than happy to correct wrong data on their end, rather than go to the expense of suing with bad facts. They have more than enough valid debts and don't need to waste time and money trying to collect something that isn't owed. I would estimate that very few  people who fight and lose ever learn this lesson.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

There is too much money and too many regulations involved to leave this in the hands of humans - all of this is automated to the point where bonafide violations are non-existent. Anyone who thinks the odds of getting a violation outweigh letting them know that they found a live debtor at a current address, then, by all means, send up a flare! An obvious exception is where you KNOW, 100%, that the collection letter is in error - like you never had a credit card, or you have documentation from paying off and closing a card. I've seen cases where a DV helps a debt buyer connect the dots and purge those bad records. (And I totally agree with checking amounts - especially as they are reported. FCRA claims are your friends, as Mr. Cheese helped me discover, much to Cavalry's chagrin.)

Please remember - this is a legitimate business and not some back-alley scam. The Midland's of the world are more than happy to correct wrong data on their end, rather than go to the expense of suing with bad facts. They have more than enough valid debts and don't need to waste time and money trying to collect something that isn't owed. I would estimate that very few  people who fight and lose ever learn this lesson.

 

I have been trained as a software test engineer and trust me, the statement "To error is human, to really screw things up requires a computer!" is still very true to this day. Computers can mess all sorts of things up. True, it is less likely but the likelihood is not 0. Also, when you send a DV letter, the letter must be initially handled by a human who has to then put it into the system. All sorts of errors can happen in that process. So to say it will never happen is not true. I do agree however with the big players, it is less likely to happen. As for the small Buffalo NY style players, trust me, nothing has changed there and they will use every trick they can knowing that paying out $1k once in a while is just a cost of doing business.

So it comes down to what is your strategy for dealing with this? If your strategy is to lay low and hope it blows over, then a DV might not be a good idea. However, if you are intending to go on the offensive and use arb to bash them, then the JDB knowing they got the right person does not matter because they still will have to get through the process. As @fisthardcheese said, you would be surprised at even how many of the big players trip over low bars.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

There is too much money and too many regulations involved to leave this in the hands of humans - all of this is automated to the point where bonafide violations are non-existent. Anyone who thinks the odds of getting a violation outweigh letting them know that they found a live debtor at a current address, then, by all means, send up a flare! An obvious exception is where you KNOW, 100%, that the collection letter is in error - like you never had a credit card, or you have documentation from paying off and closing a card. I've seen cases where a DV helps a debt buyer connect the dots and purge those bad records. (And I totally agree with checking amounts - especially as they are reported. FCRA claims are your friends, as Mr. Cheese helped me discover, much to Cavalry's chagrin.)

Please remember - this is a legitimate business and not some back-alley scam. The Midland's of the world are more than happy to correct wrong data on their end, rather than go to the expense of suing with bad facts. They have more than enough valid debts and don't need to waste time and money trying to collect something that isn't owed. I would estimate that very few  people who fight and lose ever learn this lesson.

 

But it is that automation system is exactly where we see the majority of current violations.  Once the button is pressed, so to say, the machine takes over and only does what it is programmed to do.  When you toss in some wrenches (like we do with arbitration) or if you cause someone (or the computer) to make a mistake, that mistake will continue through the process and can potentially become a big error to help your side.  For instance suing in the wrong county or the wrong person.

Also, if you think Midland is using a DV letter as verification of location, then you are also mistaken.  Midland already has your name in the system with whatever address they are going to run with.  The system will decide to sue you or not based mostly on your credit report and other factors, and they will sue using the address in their system whether you send a DV or not.  The automated system you speak of does not speed up or slow down with DV letters.  If they have decided to sue, they will sue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 9:36 AM, fisthardcheese said:

The violations with validation letter are much fewer, this is true.  However, I am a big proponent of using every consumer right you have to help achieve the best outcome you can get.  Yes, it is a low bar, but it is still a bar.  People can accidentally trip over a bar even when they know it is there. If the law allows me to dispute and forces the collector to stop collecting until they validate, why would you not use that?  There are potential violations where they might still call you before responding to your dispute letter.  They may (and we have seen recently, even) sue you without responding to your dispute letter.  That "continued collection activity" without sending a DV first is good leverage to use to fight back, if needed.

FHC,

Would you elaborate on this concept?  I have been searching for more info on this as a strategy to use, but have not had any luck.

I have a debt that has been with a JDB for almost 2 years that is on my CR. They initially sent a dunning letter and also verified after I sent them a validation request.

I recently moved and was sent a new dunning letter by them at my new address. I'm wondering if a new DV letter would force them to stop reporting to the CR agencies until they Validate?

I'm wondering how I'd proceed with said leverage. How I'd obtain it, check dates, prove dates, etc....

Any input is appreciated.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RockDaddy said:

FHC,

Would you elaborate on this concept?  I have been searching for more info on this as a strategy to use, but have not had any luck.

I have a debt that has been with a JDB for almost 2 years that is on my CR. They initially sent a dunning letter and also verified after I sent them a validation request.

I recently moved and was sent a new dunning letter by them at my new address. I'm wondering if a new DV letter would force them to stop reporting to the CR agencies until they Validate?

I'm wondering how I'd proceed with said leverage. How I'd obtain it, check dates, prove dates, etc....

Any input is appreciated.  Thanks.

If it's the same JDB, they've already validated once and are not required to do so again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BV80 said:

If it's the same JDB, they've already validated once and are not required to do so again.

BV80,

Thanks, I figured it was too good to be true. Thought I might get them with a catch 22.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RockDaddy said:

I'm wondering if a new DV letter would force them to stop reporting to the CR agencies until they Validate?

They are not required to stop reporting until they validate.  Only stop COLLECTING.  Unfortunately the federal circuits are deeply divided on whether reporting the debt is collection activity and until someone challenges it all the way to SCOTUS AND they actually hear the case and rule on it there is no clear cut answer on this.  You won't force a deletion through validation these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clydesmom said:

They are not required to stop reporting until they validate.  Only stop COLLECTING.  Unfortunately the federal circuits are deeply divided on whether reporting the debt is collection activity and until someone challenges it all the way to SCOTUS AND they actually hear the case and rule on it there is no clear cut answer on this.  You won't force a deletion through validation these days.

As far as I've always known, reporting IS considered collection activity, no? I mean, I see your point about it being challenged, etc, but still...

Either way it's a moot point as BV80 pointed out - I had a dunning letter & validation a couple of years ago.

My recent move must have prompted their computer to send me a new letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 3:11 PM, BV80 said:

until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment

I think this is a more significant phrase of the statute. It makes is explicitly clear that, upon the consumer's request for validation, and if the debt collector wishes to continue collection activity,  the debt collector must first go back to the OC and get the verification from there, and then send it on to the consumer. This rules out any legal possibility for the debt collector to simply resend the original demand letter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but there are a lot of "ors" in that very long sentence. I can see where it was aimed at a third (or fourth) party, working off a call list - but does this really mean Midland has to call Wells Fargo for every DV letter and ask if their name and address is still the same as it was when they sold the portfolio a month ago?

So if an OC folds, or is merged or acquired, it's a violation because there is no one at the source to answer the phone and verify a company name and address that no longer exists? If that's the case, then every DV letter should be followed by a JAMS case alleging that the debt buyer didn't REALLY call the OC, but just relied on their incorporated business records.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Yes, but there are a lot of "ors" in that very long sentence. I can see where it was aimed at a third (or fourth) party, working off a call list - but does this really mean Midland has to call Wells Fargo for every DV letter and ask if their name and address is still the same as it was when they sold the portfolio a month ago?

So if an OC folds, or is merged or acquired, it's a violation because there is no one at the source to answer the phone and verify a company name and address that no longer exists? If that's the case, then every DV letter should be followed by a JAMS case alleging that the debt buyer didn't REALLY call the OC, but just relied on their incorporated business records.

 

I think in this case, the "stepping into the shoes of the OC" applies in Midland's favor as well.  They are now, legally, the new OC when buying an account.  So technically, I THINK, Midland Credit Management only has to check with Midland Funding to verify if the information is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fisthardcheese said:

I think in this case, the "stepping into the shoes of the OC" applies in Midland's favor as well.  They are now, legally, the new OC when buying an account. 

That makes sense. I may be totally wrong here, but the whole DV thing seems like a distraction - they can just sue, right, rather than sending yet another letter? I'm just talking about the major players, but if they have their house in order regarding not violating, all a DV request does is tell them that they found the right person.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.