Correspondence from Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC after asking for debt validation

[A1Credit]

I send a certified letter to PRA requesting debt validation and asking them to stop calling me back to back from numerous numbers throughout the day.  While they did not address the unwanted calls, they did send me a letter basically saying what was on the credit report.  No other proof of the debt was given.  Is this all that they have to provide?  What other information should be included in the debt validation letter?  I'm upset that more detail was not given.  How am I suppose to know if the amount is accurate that they are requesting?  What is the next step that I should take?

[A1Credit]

Does anyone have any advice?

[RobertEG]

If they have provided a statement that they verify the accuracy of the debt, that is usually sufficient in most jurisdications if your DV was sent under the federal FDCPA.

Documentation is required in some states if a DV is sent under the state statute or reg.

If you consider their validation to be inadequate, that does not constitute a violation on their part.

Provided your DV was timely (meaning it was sent within 30 days of their dunning notice, or prior to any dunning notice), it imposes a cease collection bar, which remains in effect until they provide adequate validation.  Thus, there is no violation until such time as they resume collection activities without having validated.

Did your DV request explicityly request an itemization of the asserted debt?

What is your state of residence?

[A1Credit]

Yes, I asked for an itemization.  The information they provided is simply a repeat of what is on the credit report.  My state of residence is TN.

[A1Credit]

@RobertEG I responded...anything to add?

[RobertEG]

You could take the position that lack of itemization makes the DV response inadequate to fulfill the request.

However, itemization of the asserted debt is not specified under the federal DV process as a requirment for adequate validation.

Some federal appellate jurisdictions have upheld the right for itemization as part of adequate validation, but it varies under case law precedent depending upon your residence.

If you assert that they have failed to provide adequate validation, that does not make their response a violation of the FDCPA.  It simply means that they remain under a cease collection bar (providing your DV was timely).  You could, if they resume active collection, then file a complaint with the CFPB or initiate civil action for breach of their continued cease collection bar.

Tennessee does not have a state statute or regulation that requires itemization as a part of validation of the debt.

[A1Credit]

I don't understand how collectors can get away with this.  It seems they can simply say you owe whatever amount they deem appropriate and you are forced to pay.  I would think that something more detailed should be warranted.  I am so frustrated right now.

[RobertEG]

The DV process was never intended by congress to compel proofs of an asserted debt.

The purpose was to provide consumers with a temporary reprieve from active collection activities by debt collectors until they have at least investigated and provided a statement that they have verified the debt.

The consumer has recourse to the courts if they wish a review of the factual legitimacy of an asserted debt.

The DV process is not a full legal process that provides discovery of all relevant factual documentation.