30-day Validation window

You can still request validation at any time. Failure to request it w/in the first 30 days does not in any way waive your right to dispute, it only holds off collection activity until validation is provided. If your DV is un-timely, the CA does not have to cease collection activity. If you live in TX, all DV's are timely per sec 392 of the TFC.

There's no opinion. it's pretty cut and dried. Sec 809(b) is the only statute in the fdcpa that sets the time limit to dispute the debt:

??

Thank you for posting letter "C" also, nascardevil. Because from the way I interpret it, if they debtor does not request validation within the first 30 days, they can still do so during "discovery", if they are sued by the CA, and the CA would still have to validate the debt. If they are unable to validate the debt, and the debtor doesn't admit the debt is theirs, then there isn't much of a leg for the CA to stand on.

Agreed?

I most definitely want to agree with you Ron. :D I have two pending law suits right now. My last response to one of these CA's was, they never validated the debt so I asked for a dismissal due to the fact there is no documentation supporting their claim. What made it more interesting is, this CA responded to my statement with; they did not have possession of any such documentation because the defendant [that would be me] received monthly statements and has any and all such documentation! WHOA! As if I am going to produce evidence for them! lol! NOT!!!!! It's been three weeks, and I still haven't received a response from the court, or the CA [Plaintiff]. Anyway, I agree with YOU Ron!! :D

The law is made plain in statute. After the thirty day window you can still validate,but you lose the cease collection part.Do remember to check your state laws as some states have laws tougher than federal.

LOL!

That's funny stuff Shazzers!

I knew I remembered reading someone's post that made mention of that; the CA's attorney basically stating the defendant could prove the debt was theirs. Just didn't remember it was you. Oh yeah, like I'm going to make it any easier on them by showing up with all the supporting documentation for them! Does that mean I'd get half of their attorney's fees for doing half the work for them?

I'd pull a "Mark Fuhrman" on them so fast, it would make their heads spin!

Thanks for clarifying CajunBulldog, it's always good to know all the facts before something one person says is taken as Gospel. I'm not always right, and don't mind being corrected when I'm not.

I would like to point out that when the 30 day window begins is very fuzzy. I DV'd a collector over a year ago for a debt they claimed I owed. At the time he claimed he had sent a number of letters about the debt over a 90 day time period and that I was not responding in a timley manner. I simply told him I never received those mailing other than the most recent one a few days ago therefore the 30 day time period was not even close to expiring. He tried to referce some numbers on his letters to prove he had sent them. I told him "I suppose you have U.S. postal verification return receipt requested to prove I received those letters." He of course said no.

Basically my point is unless you tell them in writing you received their mailings or they get third party verification then there really is nothing to start the clock. A DV letter should squelch them at least until they sell off the debt which is what I am facing now. The reason I say that is because I recently received 2 phone calls about the same debt but from a different company. I informed them that I had requested full validation and that they were in violation of federal law until they provided me with such documentation. The collector stated that they had never received such a request. I stated that of course they did and I had the return receipt to prove it. The problem is that it is a new company now so I think I will probably have to DV them. I will do that when they actually send me something in the mail unless they start to really bother me at work. So far they have only called twice at my work with one call being a message.

In reality the 30 clock doesn't count for much anyway. The DV letter should take care of the phone calls no matter what time frame you send it in. It also forces the company to prove you owe the debt before they continue collections. To my understanding the only thing the 30 day time frame does is allow you to respond quick enough to force them to remove the item from your credit report until they validate but I really doubt a collection agency follows that law carefully on that. It would give some more strength to a harrassment suit maybe but I would think you would need other points to sue on besides the 30 day clock by itself since it is kind of vague.

The only problem with that is the CA(JDB) does not have to prove they sent you a dunning letter. They only have to prove that they have a documented sytem in place for the production, mailing and tracking of dunning letters.

I have used that to my advantage. I went out and bought an electronic stamp and whenever I receive a dunning letter, I stamp REC'D ON______. If they only have to prove they have a system in place for sending then I should only have to prove that I have a system in place for the receipt and send all DV's CMRRR.

I wasn't asking him to prove he sent it. I was asking him to prove that I received it i.e. a signature and I told him thats how I sent my important mail including the letter I would be sending him. Basically he said I received it simply because he sent it. I replied that my mail had been breach and I was not receiving important information like that and other bills and thats why the account was opened to begin with.

The DV letter stopped them in their tracks for over a year. The 30 day period really had very little effect on anything. They recently sold it off though so I guess I will have to DV a new company. I will do that after they send me something in the mail. So far I have only received 2 phone calls.

They don't have to prove you received it either. They use the "It was not returned to us" or "we were not notified by the post office that the letter was forewarded to another address" excuse if you call them on it. You got lucky with this one. No matter how many dunnings I receive from a CA, if it has the "mini-miranda" on it, I consider it the initial communication.

My personal rule of thumb is to send the DV request when/if I receive the very first phone call (if I'm able to determine what CA it is and their contact information) without even waiting for the dunning letter. With some CA's I have never, ever received the first written communication from; Il-Legal Mediation Mal-Practice being an example of this.

Do you feel that is OK to do?

I also make it a point to mention in the letter whether I have received the dunning letter before I sent the DV letter. I also mention how many times they have contacted me, and by what methods. Some CA's don't even call me, they start out by calling third parties (namely my mother) when all my telephone contact information is still correct and current (meaning my phone number is still the same and still in service). I also mention any interesting particulars (IE: fdcpa violations) about the phone messages they may have left, if I feel it relevant.

I just thought it made sense to include the information in the DV letter, just to document if this CA ever becomes and issue (meaning violating the FDCPA) and I need to follow through by legal means (meaning suing their pants off for FDCPA violations.)

Il-Legal Mediation Mal-Practice is a great example of this.

Always, always document everything. It will help you in the long run if it comes to litigation. Personally, I usually hold back the info on violations until I rack up several. Since suing under the fdcpa is only up to $1000 per action, I look for violations under the FCRA and the TFC(both Sec 392 and Chapter 20, Unfair Business Practices) which allow for $1000 per violation and treble damage respectively.

Yeah, I usually don't say "and here is a list of fdcpa violations" when I include them in my letter, unless it is a particularly egregious one. I'm just putting them on paper so I can show a court (if it degenerates to the point of litigation) what I had to deal with in the way of bad behavior by the CA. I'm sure any idiot could figure out why I'm listing them in my letter, though.

Of course, that's usually what I'm dealing with. Idiots.

My main goal is to halt them in their tracks before they get really cranked up on the telephone calls. I just don't need that extra stress and headache to deal with; in addition to my usual stress and headaches, that is.

I don't have the litigation mindset myself. I won't hesitate to file if it comes right down to it but I generally just let them hang themselves. I have faxed off a couple ITS letters with the first 2 pages of the complaint filled out and that has gotten me what I wanted - deletion of the tradelines.

If it's so important that we as debtors send validation letters to CA's certified returned receipt in order to prove in a court of law that they [collection agency] received it by way of a signed receipt, then why isn't it the other way around. That seems like a double standard to me. The court will only recognize and rule on PROOF by a signed receipt the CA received my correspondence, BUT, on the flip side, a CA can simply say in a court of law that a dunning letter was sent to me through USPS and it's accepted. No proof mind you, just the word of the CA. I wonder if a debtor could use that same argument and get away with it? I rather doubt it. :?

Shazzers, that is a very good point! Unfortunately you are pretty much correct; my word that I had the facilities in place to send a DV letter to a CA would not be proof enough. I would have to produce that card signed by the CA. It seems no matter how much the CA's whine about how difficult it is to get debtors to pay their bills, there's always another example of how the decks are stacked against the debtor and the CA/Attorney has the majority of the power.

It really is a double standard and really, really sucks!

The CA proving they sent it in my case really didn't matter which was really the point I was trying to make. I let the DV letter handle the calls. Really what I was trying to show is the 30 day time period is a bogus period. They could send you 100 letters and call you every day for 6 months but you can still DV with a C&D attached. The only thing the 30 day time period does is establish a disputing period in which you have to file if you want them to quit reporting to the Credit Reporting Agency by law until they validate. In my opinion, I doubt many CAs follow that even if you do dispute within the 30 days and can prove it although it would make a harassment case a bit stronger if you filed a suit. Also you can accomplish the same thing by DV the CA and then disputing with the CRA.
Like any call that a collector makes it just turns into a pissing match until one person hangs up on the other. I generally force them to hang up on me simply because I am stubborn and argumentative by nature and I like a good debate. If I am busy I just don't take the call to begin with. I was bantering back in forth with a not to bright collector and trapped him on the 30 day period. If he would have used the excuses you gave Nascardevil
??
I would have responded that they just further proved that my mail has been compromised i.e. if they really sent it and I didn't receive it then someone obviously took it like other important mail I have had swiped and futhermore it strengthens the case that they should have sent it return receipt requested. I don't know if a judge would accept that as a valid reason but in my case it didn't matter since it was just another phone call.
Everything I told the CA was true by the way I just tend to leave a lot out. My real dilemma is my wife opened up an account in my name only without my knowledge and consent. I actually never did receive any of their letters or bills probably because my wife chucked them all. The reason I found out was because I got a call at work. I beat her ass for doing it but I do not have the money to pay them and either does she. Obviously I can't file a police report for ID theft so my only option is to dispute with the CA and DV them for proof that the account is mine until either the SOL runs out, I get sued or I have enough cash to settle. The thing is the CA has no way to tie me to that account. I never signed a contract or a receipt agreeing to any of their terms. If it ever went to court I would hire an attorney since it is a sticky situation for me. It has already hopped CAs twice though so I don't see it going to court anytime soon.