Palisades Response to DV

[headspin]

On Feb 9 I sent a DV letter CMRRR to Palisades for a collection that showed up on my EX report, I also disputed with EX.  Within the next two weeks the Palisades collection showed up on both EQ and TU, I disputed with both agencies but did not re-send the DV letter.  After 30 days my dispute with EX came back deleted (I'm thinking the only reason they deleted was because the 30 days was up), the other two are still within the 30 days.

Today I received a letter from Palisades basically stating that they received my letter and are still investigating, however they have placed my account on hold, and all collection activity has ceased while they are investigating. 

I want to send them another letter telling them that this is not acceptable, since they only have 30 days to verify the debt or delete and their 30 days is up.  Is there a sample letter I can use?

Also in my original DV I stated that I was disputing the account on my EX report, since at the time it was only on EX, should I send another DV stating I am disputing the two others as well just so they are clear?  Or is the dispute with the CRA enough?

[Anonymous]

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe them reporting to EQ and TU  AFTER receiving your DV and before validating is a violation. Do you have hard copies of your CRs without the account and then after?

---

headspin wrote:

On Feb 9 I sent a DV letter CMRRR to Palisades for a collection that showed up on my EX report, I also disputed with EX.  Within the next two weeks the Palisades collection showed up on both EQ and TU, I disputed with both agencies but did not re-send the DV letter.  After 30 days my dispute with EX came back deleted (I'm thinking the only reason they deleted was because the 30 days was up), the other two are still within the 30 days.

Today I received a letter from Palisades basically stating that they received my letter and are still investigating, however they have placed my account on hold, and all collection activity has ceased while they are investigating. 

I want to send them another letter telling them that this is not acceptable, since they only have 30 days to verify the debt or delete and their 30 days is up.  Is there a sample letter I can use?

Also in my original DV I stated that I was disputing the account on my EX report, since at the time it was only on EX, should I send another DV stating I am disputing the two others as well just so they are clear?  Or is the dispute with the CRA enough?

---

[headspin]

I think I may have a report on myfico without the collection, and a report on truecredit with the collection.  Plus I have the green card showing the date they received my letter.  I have never heard of this though, is it definitely a violation?

[Anonymous]

I am not 100% sure. I know they can't collect or report until they validate if they haven't already reported. If they have already reported, then that is fine, they don't have to remove, but I don't think they can update until they validate.

However in this case, they had already reported, but not on EQ and TU.

IMO, yes it is. But my opinion isn't what matters.  

---

headspin wrote:

I think I may have a report on myfico without the collection, and a report on truecredit with the collection.  Plus I have the green card showing the date they received my letter.  I have never heard of this though, is it definitely a violation?

---

[Anonymous]

Sidewinder,

That happened to me as well with Allied. They were only showing up on EQ but after they got my DV they posted a TL on EX and THEN turned around and sent me a bill!  I do have proof showing they were not on EX prior to my DV.

Please advise.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

IMO- The only thing they can do while they have an active DV is to update CRA's DISPUTED.

As adding items to a CRA is COLLECTION ACTIVITY and IS a violation.

IMO- if they verify the dispute with the other 2 - that is 2 more violations- 

$4K

[Anonymous]

I've seen reference to "violations" on a bunch of posts, along with a dollar amount applied to each violation.  Can you elaborate?  Is this FTC regs, statute, etc?...I'm assuming it is FDCPA, but not sure where to look for more info.

I have an almost identical situation with Palisades -- still waiting for 30-days on DV letter to expire.

[Anonymous]

---

JAM wrote:

I've seen reference to "violations" on a bunch of posts, along with a dollar amount applied to each violation.  Can you elaborate?  Is this FTC regs, statute, etc?...I'm assuming it is FDCPA, but not sure where to look for more info.

I have an almost identical situation with Palisades -- still waiting for 30-days on DV letter to expire.

---

Depends on which violation it is as to what they violated. Could be FDCPA or FCRA.