Couchboss

Received a letter from Malen & Associates P.C.

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

I hope it wasn't any longer than a sentence or two. There are terrible ones on this site that should never be followed.

Yes I just put all the address info, file number and said this is not a refusal to pay but validation is requested regarding this debt. If I do not heard back within 30 days from the date, I will assume this was sent in error and not a debt I am required to pay. 

 

 

They gave me 30 days so I’m giving them 30 days. I got it certified and now I wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Couchboss said:

They gave me 30 days so I’m giving them 30 days.

Under FDCPA law they do not have to respond within 30 days.  They are only required to cease collection activities until they do validate.  Also, keep in mind validation consists of the name/address of the original creditor and amount they say you owe.  No documents or proof are required.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

Under FDCPA law they do not have to respond within 30 days.  They are only required to cease collection activities until they do validate.  Also, keep in mind validation consists of the name/address of the original creditor and amount they say you owe.  No documents or proof are required.  

Aww man. Then it was kinda pointless to even send the letter. They could just look up my credit and see all the info they need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Couchboss said:

Then it was kinda pointless to even send the letter.

No.  It buys you a little time.  Not much but some.

7 minutes ago, Couchboss said:

They could just look up my credit and see all the info they need.

You are missing the point.  Most of the DV letters found on the internet and sites like this are riddled with errors.  MANY consumers make the mistake of demanding proof of the debt, statements, business licenses and a plethora of other nonsense that is not required to be compliant with the laws.  ALL the info they need is bare minimum.  The threshold for validation is so low you can trip over it.  Creditors are free to ignore demands for anything that is not legally required by state or Federal law.  Sometimes they do not validate and return the account to their client.  Velocity may start over with a new law firm.  Regardless you always want to preserve your rights under the law.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 7:00 AM, fisthardcheese said:

Sending a simple, short letter stating that you dispute the alleged debt and ask for validation is not a bad idea.  All it really does is stall for a bit, and gives them one small hoop they have to jump through before they can sue you, but it won't stop them.

^^

The entire point of a DV letter is to DISPUTE in writing in order to trigger the validation requirement under the FDCPA law.  It drives me crazy that those terrible letters floating around the interet say things like "this is not a refusal to pay".  That is a horrible line.  It really won't matter, just not the best way to go about the DV letter.

As stated, they don't have to respond in any time frame - or at all.  They only must respond before they sue or continue to send more collection letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

^^

The entire point of a DV letter is to DISPUTE in writing in order to trigger the validation requirement under the FDCPA law.  It drives me crazy that those terrible letters floating around the interet say things like "this is not a refusal to pay".  That is a horrible line.  It really won't matter, just not the best way to go about the DV letter.

As stated, they don't have to respond in any time frame - or at all.  They only must respond before they sue or continue to send more collection letters.

So what happens if they proceed to sue without replying to my certified letter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 5:17 PM, Clydesmom said:

Also, keep in mind validation consists of the name/address of the original creditor and amount they say you owe.  No documents or proof are required.  

Actually, they must do more than simply repeat what they claimed in the initial communication.  That’s nothing more than “because we say so.”  No court has ruled that a debt collector can validate by repeating the claim made in that initial communication.   

1692g(b)

(b) Disputed debts

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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.

Notice that the above states that a debt collector must obtain verification and mail a copy to the consumer.   Simply repeating what he claimed in the first communication is not “obtaining” verification. 

We also must consider the intent of Congress.  If repeating the information contained in the initial communication is all that is required to validate a debt, 1692g(b) would not have been included.  Congress would not have included the words “obtains verification” and “copy of such verification” if it did not intend for more than “because we say so.”  

The following is from a NY federal court  

However, courts have "interpreted `verification' to require only that the debt collector obtain a written statement that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Ritter v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 118 F. Supp. 3d 497, 500 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).

”Obtain a written statement” shows that something more must be provide to validation a debt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BV80 said:

Actually, they must do more than simply repeat what they claimed in the initial communication.  That’s nothing more than “because we say so.”  No court has ruled that a debt collector can validate by repeating the claim made in that initial communication.   

1692g(b)

(b) Disputed debts

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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.

Notice that the above states that a debt collector must obtain verification and mail a copy to the consumer.   Simply repeating what he claimed in the first communication is not “obtaining” verification. 

We also must consider the intent of Congress.  If repeating the information contained in the initial communication is all that is required to validate a debt, 1692g(b) would not have been included.  Congress would not have included the words “obtains verification” and “copy of such verification” if it did not intend for more than “because we say so.”  

The following is from a NY federal court  

However, courts have "interpreted `verification' to require only that the debt collector obtain a written statement that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Ritter v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 118 F. Supp. 3d 497, 500 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).

”Obtain a written statement” shows that something more must be provide to validation a debt.  

To this point, the copy of their verification also must be sent by the debt collector, which has been a sticking point in a recent case where the JDB seemed to rely on the OC sending verification on their behalf.

Everyone talks about the non-factor of a DV, but there are still very key elements that must be met and even though it is rare these days, violations over it do occur due to short cuts and over simplifying their automation processes.

6 hours ago, Couchboss said:

So what happens if they proceed to sue without replying to my certified letter?

Nothing much. You still must go through the process to answer the lawsuit and file a motion to compel arbitration.  You would just use the fact that they failed to respond to your DV as a counter claim against them in your arbitration case.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I sent a debt validation letter and they sent me the mother load of verification lol. What should be my next step? Should I even fight this in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 6:10 PM, Couchboss said:

So I sent a debt validation letter and they sent me the mother load of verification lol. What should be my next step? Should I even fight this in court?

Now you sit quiet to see what they do next.

As stated several times above, you don't "fight it" in court. You force it out of court and into arbitration.  I assume you haven't read the arbitration post in my link below.  I would suggest you do this before anything else happens so you have an understanding of what will happen.

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.