Confused about DV reply from CA - What to do next?

[Anonymous]

So I sent a DV letter to Enhanced Recovery Company (ERC) for an old Sprint bill that was listed on my report. They deleted the TL within a few days of receipt and then just sent me the validation.  Here is what it says:

"We are in receipt of your letter of dispute and request for verification pursuant to 15 USC 1692g of the FDCPA. This letter is in response to your dispute. Please be advised we have contacted our client, who has confirmed the name and address listed on the account as well as the amount owed. Enclosed is a summary of the charges on the account and any billing statements provided by our client that confirm the charges.

Please be advised we have reported this debt to consumer reporting agencies, but in acknowledgement of your dispute, we have requested the account be removed from all credit reporting agencies. Consumer reporting agencies may take up to 30 days or longer to update reports and this is beyond our control.

Should you have any questions regarding this account or any information provided at this time, please feel free to contact us."

At the bottom of the letter it says "This communication is made for the limited purposes of responding to your dispute and is NOT an attempt to collect a debt."

That last statement really makes me question just what this letter is.

With that said, should I:

1) Send payment for the debt
2) Send a PFD letter that states by paying the debt they agree to not re-report it
3) Not pay it

PLEASE HELP!  THANKS!

[Shogun]

This seems to be happening more and more.  Seems like the flavor for the month now with CAs.  They take the DV and turn it into a dispute.  

[Anonymous]

So what do I do in this scenario?

[Shogun]

You say it's old, how old?  Is it past the SOL of your state?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it's past the SOL. I just don't want them to re-report it.

[RobertEG]

Very caging wording on their part, as they avoid directly saying it was considered an FCRA dispute!

The precise wording of DV requests under FDCPA 809(b) is that the debt, in whole or in part, "is disputed."

So a DV can be considered as a "dispute."  However, unlike disputes under the FCRA, which relate to the accuracy of reported information rather than the debt, debt validation does not require the identification of any inaccuracy, or any any supporting documentation.  It's an entirely different species of "dispute."

They never directly stated that it was considered an FCRA dispute of accuracy of credit reporting.

Thus, in my opinion, they both provided debt verification by affirming the accuracy of the debt and its amount, but then voluntarily deleted their reporting.

In any communication that is related to collection of a debt, they are required to so state.  By directly stating that their communication is NOT related to collection on the debt, and that their reporting is deleted, thus depriving you of the ability to now file an FCRA dispute.  Cagey.

It could be argued that they have abandoned collection.  Interesting implications should they later attempt reinsertion....

I understand your confusion.  It makes no sense to verify, thus removing the cease collection bar, and then state that their communication is not related to their collection on the asserted debt.  Contradictory in intepreting their future status.........

[Anonymous]

Thanks Robert, appreciate your insight. So what would you do in this situation?

[RobertEG]

This is to advise that the communication received ( ) was apparently improperly considered on your part as a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8).

It was clearly identified as a request for debt validation under FDCPA 809(b).  No reference to credit report information or an assertion of any inaccuracy was provided.

Absent validation on your part, you are thus prevented under the cease collection bar imposed under FDCPA 809(b) from any collection on the debt until the requested debt validation has been provided, including any reporting to a consumer reporting agency of your collection activities.

In the event that you persist in your misinterpretation of my request as a direct dispute, be advised that the direct dispute rules at 16 CFR 660.4 require that you conclude any such direct dispute within 30 days, and if dismissed, provide identification of the documentation you assert as lacking.  The direct dispute rules do not permit you to avoid conclusion of a dispute by requiring additional information.

Thus, in addition to being barred reporting to a CRA, any reporting of a dispute would be required to be followed by reporting its dismissal after 30 days from the date of my prior communication.  I trust that any such reporting of an FCRA dispute status, being now clearly advised that it was NOT a dispute, will not be made.