Question about collection agencies refusing to answer D/V letters
Date: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 14:53
I recently received a couple of notices from 3 different collection agencies, each of them from the legal department stating that I had been getting bills from the original creditors and then these CA's as well but I never bothered to take care of my debt and now I would be sued, yada yada yada......
Anyway, I sent D/V letters to all 3 agencies, giving them 5 working days to validate the debt (because I had NOT received prior billings) and send me something back. This all happened roughly 3 weeks ago. To this date, I have heard nothing. I have called 2 of the 3 agencies now, and all I get is screamed at and threatened to pay my balance.
So, I sent another round of letters out with the same 5 day time frame. I got one letter back (my signed copy) along with a letter from the agency stating they don't have to validate anything and I was to pay my balance now.
My question is this: If I send a D/V letter and they refuse to validate or they just don't answer, is that grounds for dismissal of the debt?
Thanks for any info you can give me.
hiya--- It isnt grounds to have the debt simply disappear, but
hiya---
It isnt grounds to have the debt simply disappear, but it IS grounds for you to tell them that until they abide by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, they have no business calling you, sending you letters demanding payment, or anything else.
I would send them another certified letter, and in this letter I would explain to them that according to federal law they have the obligation to provide validation of the debt in question. I would also inform them that once they receive your DV letter, they are not allowed, per the FDCPA, to take any collection effort whatsoever until they properly validate the debt.
Just so you know, there is no 5 day limit, the 5 day limit is for the amount of time they have to send you an initial dunning letter after first communication. They may never validate it, but if they intend to collect on it they had better do so--or I would sue them over it.
