Attorney collecting for CA did not validate

[Anonymous]

Im not really sure how to handle this situation.

There is a CA reporting on my credit reports for an old charged off account that they bought. They have an attorney trying to collect on the debt. I sent a DV letter to the attorney and the CA. The CA responded with a letter say I disputed the amount being reported and attached CC statements ( I did not do this, I requested validation). The attorney responded and sent CC statements. I did not respond to the CA but did respond to the attorney and told them that per MA law, they have not properly validated the debt. The attorney has not responded to me since they received that letter, which was March 13 so not that long ago. Today I received a letter from the CA saying that they are uncertain of what I am specifically disputing and that I should send them documentation demonstrating errors. 

I'm really not sure what to do now. Do I wait on the attorney to respond and not acknowledge the CA? 

Do I respond to the CA and tell them that I requested DV from their attorney and they were unable to validate? Or do I again request DV from the CA?

Thank you 

[RobertEG]

In order to invoke the enhanced provisions of the Massachusettes debt validation process, you must specifically identify your request as being under the Code of Massachusettes Regulations, and not the general provisions of the federal FDCPA.

More specifically, requests under the Massachusettes code should cite the debt validation provisions of 940 CMR 7.08.

Did your prior letter clearly state that it was being made under the Mass code, or did it simply request validation, with the implication that it was under the general FDCPA?

As for a response that does not provide adequate validation, there is no period for or requirement to provide validation under either the federal FDCPA or the Mass Code of Regulations.  Those processes impose a cease collection bar on a debt collector until they choose to send validation, but only if the request is timely (i.e., made either prior to dunning notice, or within the 30 day DV period set within a dunning notice).

Thus, lack of adequate validation is not per se ever a violation, as there is no requirment to send validation under either process.

You can send them an advisory letter stating why you consider their validation to be inadequate, thus advising them that you consider them to remain under a cease collection bar, but there is no basis for pursuing a violation of the FDCPA or CMR unless or until they resume collection activites without first having sent adequate validation.  At that point, the debt collector is likely to assert a prior response was adequate, which then requires the consumer to file civil action and get the adequacy of any validation reviewed by the court..

Lastly, they apparently misinterpreted your communication as a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8) rather than a DV request.

A furnisher can request additional info pertaining to an inaccuracy asserted in a direct dispute, but not in support of a DV request.

In your advisory letter, include the clarification that your prior communication was not a dispute under the FCRA, and thus they have no basis for requring any additional information in support of any "dispute".

A DV request requires only a statement that the debt is contested, and validation is requested.  It does not require any showing of any inaccuracy in credit reporting.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for all of that information!

I am going to contact the CA now and inform them of the back and forth between myself and their attorney. I feel they are unaware. I will also take your advice on the advisory letter.

Are you saying that if someone does not request validation within 30 days of a dunning letter (or before) the CA has no responsibility to validate whatsoever?

My DV request was not timely so does this mean that they can still update their tradeline on my reports? My understanding is yes but I want to verify. 

Thank you!

[RobertEG]

Your understanding is correct if it is sent under the federal FDCPA.

If your DV request is not timely, it imposes no cease collection bar, and the debt collector is free to ignore it and go on about their business as usual.

HOWEVER, that applies to the federal FDCPA debt validation process under FDCPA 809.

Some states, such as TX, MA, NY, and CA have enhanced debt validation statutes or regs.

TX, for example, has no timeliness requirement, and permits imposing a cease collection bar for requests sent beyond any 30-day restrictions, and also requries deletion of reported collections if validation is not then provided within 30 days.