Question of DV timing

Have you already received a dunning letter? If so, you won't receive another one, the thirty day window begins only with the first letter, and no, requesting a DV is not admitting or denying you owe a debt, it is requesting proof, so it doesn't start the clock again on the statues, as far as I know. :)

Quote:

Unless you live in TX, your DV will be un-timely. They do not have to cease collection efforts nor do they have to provide validation. If you are still w/in SOL and the debt is significant, it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

What do you mean the DV will be un-timely. I sent them one DV letter and they sent a letter saying there looking into the info and that i should call to discuss the issue with the debt. As if i need to discus how im going to pay it. So im going to send another DV letter. Well i thought. I know you where referring junk msg but your saying dont waste time with it. Just let it drop off. But mine has until 2011 to drop off and it's not even my account. This will be the second DV letter, i using the sample letter provided on this site. I guess after this i wil have to send one to the CB.

MIDLAND CREDTI MGMT INC #


8875 AERO DR STE 2
SAN DIEGO , CA 92123
(800) 265-8825

Balance: $584 Date Updated: 06/2008 Original Balance: $584 Original Creditor: SOUTHWESTERN BELL D B A AT T Past Due: >$584Collection AccountPlaced for collection<
Date placed for collection: [ 04/2006] Estimated date that this item will be removed: 03/2011

When was their initial communication (dunning letter) sent? Did you send a DV w/in 30 days of their initial dunning letter? Your initial post hinted that you had heard from them in the past. How did they contact you and when?

I sent the DV letter, then about a week or two later i received the dunning letter. Well first time i even heard of midland was seeing them on my credit report, so i send DV letter and now im in progress of sending another DV letter after getting the dunning letter a week ago.

What do they show as the date opened on your CR's? Is it a recent addition?

8875 AERO DR STE 2
SAN DIEGO , CA 92123
(800) 265-8825

Balance: $584 Date Updated: 06/2008 Original Balance: $584 Original Creditor: SOUTHWESTERN BELL D B A AT T Past Due: >$584Collection AccountPlaced for collection<
Date placed for collection: [ 04/2006] Estimated date that this item will be removed: 03/2011

It say's date open placed for collection 4/2006.

Your DV would be deemed un-timely 2 years after the TL ws reported. If SOL for your state has expired, then I would suggest that you send a follow up DV CMRRR. Track it thru the USPS website and when they show to have received it, dispute the TL with the CRA's. If they verify the TL before providing validation, then it is a violation. It may be enough to force the deletion. I would not recommend this if you are still w/in SOL.

Ok i will try that. Im in TX so i should be ok.

Unless you live in TX, your DV will be un-timely.

I made mention in an earlier post if you lived in TX. All DV's in TX are timely under TFC 392. Check the link in my signature.

I believe this is true in IL also, beginning Jan 1 2008.

what is a dunning letter?

The initial letter from a CA that has the required min-miranda w/the 30 day dispute wording. Per fdcpa, it must be on the first wriiten correspondence but in some states it is required to be on all correspondence along with "this is an attempt to collect a debt"

[center:208230472a]Quote:

Reesie I beleive you are correct, however, only if you have requested that validation within the 30 day window given upon first written contact from the creditor. Otherwise, if you don't dispute it within that given time, it is assumed you owe that debt, and states as much (usually) in the dunning letter.

Quote:

No you aren't usually given another 30 days, BUT, I'm pretty sure that the validation letter you sent to the CA is still in full force, and if they don't validate the debt, but continue to try and collect, they are in violation of the fdcpa. During the validation period, all collection attempts are suppose to stop until you receive proof (validation) the debt is yours and they can legally collect it.

Also, per FDCP, you can sue them for up to $1000.00 for violating the law, if they proceed to attempt to collect during the validation period. :D

If a CA or DB can't provide validation, I would think a debtor is within their rights to request the TL be removed from the CR.

Since the way that the fdcpa defines validation is so narrow, it generally is not very difficult for a CA(JDB) to provide what they believe is acceptable validation:

(b) 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 any 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.
(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

If you have requested validation in a timely manner and validation is not provided but they continue to update the tradeline, you can request the CRA's to delete the tradeline but the only way you can force it to happen is thru litigation. In the case of the OP, he has requested validation twice and no validation has been provided. He is in TX so the CA is required to respond w/in 30 days and apparently has not done so and the CA has not marked the TL in dispute. All violations of the FDCPA and the TFC but there are no FDCPA cops to report to. The OP may have to resort to legal measures in order to resolve this. But I would recommend filing with the BBB, TX AG, the CA's AG, the FTC and ACA first before litigation. I have an ongoing similar situation which ultimately I will likely have to litigate but I am exhausting all other means before I resort to it.

Also, regarding the 30 day dispute window. It would be reset if the JDB sells it off to another JDB or moves it from one CA to another. In the second instance, I would DV both the JDB and inform them that passing the debt around to different CA's constitutes continued collection activity.

Quote: