Can a CA continue to update the collection after you've DV'd them?

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Assuming I DV'd a collection agency 60 days ago and no validation was provided, would they have to cease updating my credit report as "Updated" every month by now?

[RobertEG]

Was your DV request timely, meaning was it sent within 30 days after dunning notice, or prior to any dunning notice?

[Anonymous]

Hi Robert. Yes let's assume everything was timely. This would be an infraction from the CA, correct? On the flip side, if it was sent prior to a dunning notice, a second DV would need to be sent to stop the updating. Is that also correct?

[RobertEG]

FDCPA 809(b) requires a debt collector to to cease collection on the debt after receipt of a timely DV until they have first sent validation of the debt.

It does not specifically state that reporting to a CRA is considered "collection on the debt" that is barred under section 809(b).

However, both the FTC, in a staff opionion letter, and several case law precedents, have held as such.

Thus, there is support for the position that reporting to a CRA after receipt of a timely DV request is a violation of a cease collection bar.

You would need to bring civil action to obtain a decision as such in your specific case.

A timely DV request can be sent either prior to any dunning notice or within 30 days after receipt of a dunning notice.

The DV then imposes a cease collection bar that remains in effect until such time as they have sent validation.

There would be no need to send a second DV if a first timely DV was sent.  Sending of a dunning notice is not validation, and thus does not remove a prior bar.

[Anonymous]

Hi Robert,

One final question: What if the CA reports to the CRA that the consumer is disputing, after only asking for DV (that contains no dispute language)? Is that a tactic on their end?

[RobertEG]

It is a common occurence that is frequently discussed here in the forum.

More specifically, some debt collectors will report to a CRA that the consumer has filed a direct dispute (FCRA 623(a)(8)) when the consumer actually was only requesting debt validation under FDCPA 809(b).  That typically occurs when the consumer argues specific inaccuracies within the DV request, which can be "misinterpreted" as a dispute under the FCRA. 

You can contact the debt collector and clarify that it is a DV request, and thus you consider them to be under a cease collection bar, and not under a requriment to respond to a direct dispute.  The  primary issue is that you clarify your intent, and thus clarify that you consider them to be under a cease collection bar.

The secondary issue is that a direct dispute under the FCRA imposes a 30 day investigation period on the debt collector, with response back to the consumer within 5 business days thereafter.  A DV request does not impose any period for or requirment to respond.

Thus, if they interpret your communication as having been a direct dispute, they cannot thereafter simply let it ride.  They are admitting a requirment to respond within the direct dispute period imposed under the FCRA.  You could, if they dont complete the "direct dispute" within the statutory period, file a complaint or civil action for violation of the FCRA.  However, neither party should really want that if it was not a "real dispute." It is thus important to clarify their responsibilities.

[Failingupwards]

I have collections where the original creditor and/or the CA are still reporting late payments-- several jumped on it and marked them as 120+ late when I paid them off, if they weren't reporting before. It's very frustrating. I'm trying to move forward, but I keep getting pulled back down by things like this.