Sent DV to Midland Credit Management, received collection letter dated before the DV response letter

[WriterDilemma]

Hello! I've searched this site for answers and done some research into handling Midland Credit Management, but I still need a bit more guidancee for my situation. I saw a post on here that I can't find now, which is driving me nuts, where the OP mentioned in the comments that they sent a DV to Midland Credit Management and they received a debt validation response letter back, but they also received another collection letter from Midland that was dated before the date on the DV response letter. Another user replying to the comment mentioned that this violated the fair debt collection practices act because Midland must cease all collection efforts until after the debt validation letter has been received and they could likely get the debt dismissed with prejudice (something along those lines, i'm paraphrasing since I can't remember the exact wording) because of that violation. I can't remember if the OP mentioned if the DV response came before the collection letter, only that the date on the collection letter was before the DV response letter's date.

Is this true?

In my case, I live in Georgia and I had a CareCredit card with Synchrony bank that I guess Midland Credit Management bought after I stopped being able to make payments and it went delinquent. I thought I hadn't received the first letter (it was sent in a plain envelope so it was tossed into my junk mail pile and forgotten about), so when I received the Pre-Legal Notification letter from them, I sent them a debt validation request and stated that I refuted the alleged debt (based on advice I read on this site) and I hadn't received a prior letter from them (a couple weeks after that I found the first letter while sorting through my junk mail). The a$$h0les also sent the pre-legal notification letter by next day air mail 3 days before I was required to respond, but they dated that letter two weeks before, as if they'd given me two weeks to reply to them instead of two days. I kept the envelope showing the date it was mailed along with the pre-legal letter in case I'd need it later.

Anyways, about a month after I sent my DV request, I received two letters: one was the debt validation response letter from Synchrony dated 3/1/19, the other was a collection letter from Midland dated 2/28/19. It's a difference of one day, but is that still important and does it count as a violation?

Another oddity I noticed is the Date of Sale date that Synchrony listed on the DV response letter doesn't match the Date of Sale date listed on the first collection letter from Midland. Midland lists the sale date as 11/20/19, but Synchrony lists it as 11/27/19. The charge-off dates matched on both letters. Is it also important that the Date of Sale dates don't match or does that not matter?

I'd like to get the debt dismissed with prejudice if possible or take them to arbitration with JAMS if Midland sues me (so far I they haven't sued me), but do I have a case for a FDCPA violation defense? The last collection letter I received gave me until Monday to respond to their 5% or 10% off settlement letter, which I have not responded to.

I'd really appreciate any advice or insight someone can give me for my situation. Thank you!

[BV80]

1 hour ago, WriterDilemma said:

Hello! I've searched this site for answers and done some research into handling Midland Credit Management, but I still need a bit more guidancee for my situation. I saw a post on here that I can't find now, which is driving me nuts, where the OP mentioned in the comments that they sent a DV to Midland Credit Management and they received a debt validation response letter back, but they also received another collection letter from Midland that was dated before the date on the DV response letter. Another user replying to the comment mentioned that this violated the fair debt collection practices act because Midland must cease all collection efforts until after the debt validation letter has been received and they could likely get the debt dismissed with prejudice (something along those lines, i'm paraphrasing since I can't remember the exact wording) because of that violation. I can't remember if the OP mentioned if the DV response came before the collection letter, only that the date on the collection letter was before the DV response letter's date.

Is this true

 

That is not true.   A debt collector can send collection letters during the 30-day period before a request for validation has been received as long as those letters do not demand payment that be received before the 30-day period is up.  

For instance, a consumer receives a collection letter containing the 30-day validation notice on April 1.  He does not send a DV request until April 25.  On April 7, he receives another collection letter.  It requests payment but does not demand that payment be received by a certain date.   That’s perfectly fine.

What would not be allowed is a demand that payment be received on a date that falls within the validation period.  Using the aforementioned example, if the collection letter received on April 7 had demanded payment be received by April 20, a date that would fall within the 30-day validation period, that would be a no-no.

 

1 hour ago, WriterDilemma said:

In my case, I live in Georgia and I had a CareCredit card with Synchrony bank that I guess Midland Credit Management bought after I stopped being able to make payments and it went delinquent. I thought I hadn't received the first letter (it was sent in a plain envelope so it was tossed into my junk mail pile and forgotten about), so when I received the Pre-Legal Notification letter from them, I sent them a debt validation request and stated that I refuted the alleged debt (based on advice I read on this site) and I hadn't received a prior letter from them (a couple weeks after that I found the first letter while sorting through my junk mail). The a$$h0les also sent the pre-legal notification letter by next day air mail 3 days before I was required to respond, but they dated that letter two weeks before, as if they'd given me two weeks to reply to them instead of two days. I kept the envelope showing the date it was mailed along with the pre-legal letter in case I'd need it later.

I’m assuming the first letter which you did not open contained the 30-day validation notice?  Is that correct?

How long BEFORE you received the Pre-Legal Notification did you receive the first letter?  If you received the Pre-Legal Notification more than 30 days after you received the first letter, you did not send a timely validation request.  As a result, the debt collector was not required to respond in  order to continue collection attempts.  There would be no violation.

Also, it does not matter when letters are dated. The date that matters is the date you receive them. 

[fisthardcheese]

20 hours ago, WriterDilemma said:

Anyways, about a month after I sent my DV request, I received two letters: one was the debt validation response letter from Synchrony dated 3/1/19, the other was a collection letter from Midland dated 2/28/19. It's a difference of one day, but is that still important and does it count as a violation?

A letter from Synchrony?  Did you send your DV to Midland or Synchrony?

[WriterDilemma]

3 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

A letter from Synchrony?  Did you send your DV to Midland or Synchrony?

To Midland, and Synchrony sent me a letter back.

[fisthardcheese]

1 hour ago, WriterDilemma said:

To Midland, and Synchrony sent me a letter back.

Directly from Synchrony??  This is very odd.

@BV80 @Brotherskeeper  Isn't this technically the same as the JDB not responding to the DV letter?  How can a dispute with the collector be answered by a party that is not the collector and then the collector continues collection efforts without actually validating the debt?

[BV80]

1 hour ago, fisthardcheese said:

Directly from Synchrony??  This is very odd.

@BV80 @Brotherskeeper  Isn't this technically the same as the JDB not responding to the DV letter?  How can a dispute with the collector be answered by a party that is not the collector and then the collector continues collection efforts without actually validating the debt?

Probably not.  Midland could have requested documentation from the OC and for some reason Synchrony sent it to the OP instead of Midland.  For Synchrony to respond at all means Midland had to contact them   

In any case, @WriterDilemma has not answered my question about the date the first collection letter was received and when he sent his request.   If his DV request was sent more than 30 days after receiving the first letter, no one was required to respond.  

[Brotherskeeper]

On 4/13/2019 at 2:22 PM, WriterDilemma said:

I thought I hadn't received the first letter (it was sent in a plain envelope so it was tossed into my junk mail pile and forgotten about),

This one is way above my pay grade and up where @BV80 resides. As I understand this, § 1692g(a) states that the debt collector may provide the validation info in the initial communication, which the OP may not have read.  

What’s the difference between Midland Funding and MCM?
Midland Funding, LLC, buys consumer debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) is a debt collector that services accounts for Midland Funding, LLC. MCM believes in helping consumers find their way back to financial stability. Midland Credit Management understands unpaid debt can cause stress, and we are here to help.

Can I work with the original company with whom this debt was created?
No, you cannot continue to work with the original company. Your account is no longer owned or serviced by the original creditor. All payments and questions need to go through Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM). MCM has helped over 7 million consumers gain control of their financial obligations.

 

15 U.S. Code § 1692g - Validation of debts

(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.

(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.

[BV80]

@Brotherskeeper

6 minutes ago, Brotherskeeper said:

As I understand this, § 1692g(a) states that the debt collector may provide the validation info in the initial communication, which the OP may not have read.  

Are you referring to the validation notice or validating the debt after receiving a DV request?

[Brotherskeeper]

29 minutes ago, BV80 said:

@Brotherskeeper

Are you referring to the validation notice or validating the debt after receiving a DV request?

I was referring to the first letter the OP thought s/he hadn't received, but later found unopened in "junk mail" pile--unknowingly received prior to sending the DV request. If that unopened letter was the initial communication from Midland and that initial communication letter contained the § 1692g(a)(1-5) statements, then hasn't Midland validated? We need to know what that first letter OP discovered said.

 

On 4/13/2019 at 3:51 PM, BV80 said:

I sent them a debt validation request and stated that I refuted the alleged debt (based on advice I read on this site) and I hadn't received a prior letter from them (a couple weeks after that I found the first letter while sorting through my junk mail).

 

[WriterDilemma]

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

Probably not.  Midland could have requested documentation from the OC and for some reason Synchrony sent it to the OP instead of Midland.  For Synchrony to respond at all means Midland had to contact them   

In any case, @WriterDilemma has not answered my question about the date the first collection letter was received and when he sent his request.   If his DV request was sent more than 30 days after receiving the first letter, no one was required to respond.  

The first letter has 12/22/18 for the date, although I don't believe I received the letter until after January 1st, since I go through my junk mail from the prior month at the beginning of each month and I'd have noticed it if it actually arrived before Jan 1st.

[BV80]

47 minutes ago, Brotherskeeper said:

I was referring to the first letter the OP thought s/he hadn't received, but later found unopened in "junk mail" pile--unknowingly received prior to sending the DV request. If that unopened letter was the initial communication from Midland and that initial communication letter contained the § 1692g(a)(1-5) statements, then hasn't Midland validated? We need to know what that first letter OP discovered said.

No.  The validation notice in 1692g(a)(1-5) only informs the consumer of his right to request validation.  It states that the consumer can request validation within 30 days of receiving that notice.  

If the notice, itself, were validation, there would be no reason for it to include that the consumer has 30 days to make a request. 

[BV80]

22 minutes ago, WriterDilemma said:

The first letter has 12/22/18 for the date, although I don't believe I received the letter until after January 1st, since I go through my junk mail from the prior month at the beginning of each month and I'd have noticed it if it actually arrived before Jan 1st.

Okay.  When did you send your DV request?

[WriterDilemma]

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

Okay.  When did you send your DV request?

On January 25th.

[fisthardcheese]

17 hours ago, Brotherskeeper said:

(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.

That last part I highlighted above.  I think it is a violation for Midland to continue collection efforts without having sent any verification after receiving OP's dispute letter.  Just because Synchrony oddly sent something, it does not satisfy 1692g(b), verification sent BY THE DEBT COLLECTOR.

[BV80]

40 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

That last part I highlighted above.  I think it is a violation for Midland to continue collection efforts without having sent any verification after receiving OP's dispute letter.  Just because Synchrony oddly sent something, it does not satisfy 1692g(b), verification sent BY THE DEBT COLLECTOR.

Ok.  And Midland will simply claim they did.  They can show that they have procedures in place to send validation.  They do not have to prove the OP received it.  

[fisthardcheese]

5 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Ok.  And Midland will simply claim they did.  They can show that they have procedures in place to send validation.  They do not have to prove the OP received it.  

This is true.  I would not open up a Federal lawsuit over this, but I would definitely use it as my claim against Midland if/when they sue me and I move the case to JAMS.  I will let them prove their procedures and show where they sent me the validation as the arbitrator's hourly rate - or alternatively for a settlement in my favor.

[BV80]

@WriterDilemma

Did the first letter contain the 30-day validation notice?

[WriterDilemma]

21 hours ago, BV80 said:

Probably not.  Midland could have requested documentation from the OC and for some reason Synchrony sent it to the OP instead of Midland.  For Synchrony to respond at all means Midland had to contact them   

In any case, @WriterDilemma has not answered my question about the date the first collection letter was received and when he sent his request.   If his DV request was sent more than 30 days after receiving the first letter, no one was required to respond.  

I'm positive the first letter didn't arrive until January 4th or 5th, i remembered getting the suspiciously nondescript envelope in early January and assumed it was one of those mass junk mail letters. So if the time period to dispute the debt begins when I received it, then I'm guessing I was within the 30 day period. They the third letter they sent (the one dated 2/28/19 that came after I sent my DV letter to them) gave me until 4/14/19 to pay them.

But today, one day after the deadline passed, I received a letter from them (dated 4/10/19) stating they can't locate my account in the system and I need to provide additional information, plus they included a copy of the DV letter I sent them and the priority mail express envelope's label for it. They've got my full name and address already, they've contacted me 3 times by mail prior to this, plus my last name is very unique and there aren't many people with my last name in the US.

So how is it possible that they suddenly can't locate my account? If they can't, how can they validate the debt or contact Synchrony to mail me that letter about the debt after I sent my DV letter? I've attached a pic of this letter (with my info blacked out). Would it help if I attached the other letters with my info blacked out?

[BV80]

16 minutes ago, WriterDilemma said:

I'm positive the first letter didn't arrive until January 4th or 5th, i remembered getting the suspiciously nondescript envelope in early January and assumed it was one of those mass junk mail letters. So if the time period to dispute the debt begins when I received it, then I'm guessing I was within the 30 day period. They the third letter they sent (the one dated 2/28/19 that came after I sent my DV letter to them) gave me until 4/14/19 to pay them.

That didn’t answer my question.  Did the first letter contain a notice stating that you had 30 days to dispute the debt and that if you did so in writing, they would obtain validation/verification?  

[WriterDilemma]

44 minutes ago, BV80 said:

That didn’t answer my question.  Did the first letter contain a notice stating that you had 30 days to dispute the debt and that if you did so in writing, they would obtain validation/verification?  

Here are all the letters I've received from MCM and the one I got from Synchrony (in case it helps or saves time for anyone). Yes, the first letter included a disclosure on the back stating I had 30 days from the date I received the notice to dispute the debt. I've attached a picture of the back of the first letter to show the exact wording (the last attachment).

[BV80]

8 minutes ago, WriterDilemma said:

Here are all the letters I've received from MCM and the one I got from Synchrony (in case it helps or saves time for anyone). Yes, the first letter included a disclosure on the back stating I had 30 days from the date I received the notice to dispute the debt. I've attached a picture of the back of the first letter to show the exact wording (the last attachment).

Thank you.

The last page shows “important disclosure information”.  Was that with the 3rd letter?

 

[fisthardcheese]

1 hour ago, WriterDilemma said:

So how is it possible that they suddenly can't locate my account? If they can't, how can they validate the debt or contact Synchrony to mail me that letter about the debt after I sent my DV letter? I've attached a pic of this letter (with my info blacked out).

In addition to not yet properly validating this debt under 1692g(b), they have now stated they can't locate your account in writing.  So, if they sue you, this would be evidence of another FDCPA violation for deception.

It looks to me like you did everything you are supposed to at this point.  They are making a jumbled confusing mess out of a simple verification process.  All of this would just be the ammo I would use in my arbitration case against them after the court grants my MTC if they sued me.  I would lean strongly on these claims to get a settlement that includes a "with prejudice" dismissal AND repayment of any costs I incur from their lawsuit and arbitration case.

[BV80]

3 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

In addition to not yet properly validating this debt under 1692g(b), they have now stated they can't locate your account in writing.  So, if they sue you, this would be evidence of another FDCPA violation for deception.

It looks to me like you did everything you are supposed to at this point.  They are making a jumbled confusing mess out of a simple verification process.  All of this would just be the ammo I would use in my arbitration case against them after the court grants my MTC if they sued me.  I would lean strongly on these claims to get a settlement that includes a "with prejudice" dismissal AND repayment of any costs I incur from their lawsuit and arbitration case.

Not so fast.   If the last page was with the 3rd letter, look at the date on the 3rd letter.

[WriterDilemma]

1 minute ago, BV80 said:

Thank you.

The last page shows “important disclosure information”.  Was that with the 3rd letter?

 

The last page was from the first letter. I've attached a picture showing the back of the third letter (the back of the second letter looks the same as the third's), which omitted the notice about disputing the validity of the debt at the top.

[fisthardcheese]

3 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Not so fast.   If the last page was with the 3rd letter, look at the date on the 3rd letter.

The date of the 3rd letter was sent AFTER op sent DV but BEFORE the "validation" from Synchrony Bank.  Either way you slice it, they have continued collections without validation.

Not to mention the second letter is VERY close to being overshadowing of the 30 day dispute period.  They don't say payment is due, but they allude to payment "opportunity" and also combine it with the thread of "legal action" if it is not paid.  That has to be stepping on the overshadow line if not right over it.