cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DV question

tag
Tdbremer
Established Member

DV question

Asset acceptance holds the debt but had a lawyer file suit in my state. Well after being served I got a letter from the lawyer "on behalf" of asset. Well I Dv'd that letter. Did I just dv the lawyer or was it asset? I'm confused??? Sounds stupid of me but if they are working for asset and are just a law firm, shouldn't asset have known I dv'd? I ask because it's been a year and asset has been reporting the whole time. Suit was settled, didn't go to court but I need grounds for deletion and was hoping this would stick. Thanks for any help!
Message 1 of 5
4 REPLIES 4
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: DV question

Their attorney was hired to represent them in the legal action, and most likely not for other matters.

They would probably have a professional responsibility to forward to the debt collector, but that could place into question their date of receipt.

I would always send the DV ro the debt collector unless advised in advance otherwise.

 

As for the impact, if they have previously reported, I assume they complied with their requirement to have sent dunning notice back when.

Thus, your DV may not have been timely, and thus it imposed no cease collection bar.

However, even if timely, the have no requirment to or period for response to a DV.  As long as they dont continue collection on the debt until they have first provided verification, they can choose not to respond. If the matter has been settled, then they would have no need to conduct further colletion, and thus no reason to respond.

 

Compliance with the DV process is a debt collection practices matter under the FDCPA, and is not itself basis for deletion of prior accurate reporting.

 

As an aside, it is stated that the suit was settled.

What were the terms?  Was the debt settled?  If so, they could simply respond by stating that they have obtained verification of the debt, and that its current balance is $0.  Verification of a DV does not require them to provide supporting documentation, or "prove" the validity.

 

 

 

Message 2 of 5
Tdbremer
Established Member

Re: DV question

I settled for 50% this month for satifaction in full and a dismissal with prejudice. I paid the 50% in a lump sum.   I send DV last year when I first got served and got a dunning notice from the attorney.  The whole kit and kaboodle " Unless you notify our office..blah blah..30 days from this letter..blah bah.."  Nothing was ever received from the attoney as far as validation.

Message 3 of 5
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: DV question

if your prior dv was timely, then they would have been under a continuous cease colletion bar from the date of its receipt.

Having negotiated a settlement with you would in and or itself have been a violation of that bar.

 

While lack of compliance with their debt collection practices requirments could form the basis for a complaint to the CFPB, and/or bringing your own legal action under the FDCPA, that does not render their reporting of their collection as inaccurate or improper, and thus is a separate issue from credit reporting.

I dont see that as a basis for requiring deletion of their collection.

 

If you decide to pursue their apparent violation of their cease collection bar by conducting negotiations and settlement on the debt prior to providiing your reqested validation of the debt, I would NOT pursue as a new DV, which would clearly be untimely.

The issue is that you consider your prior DV to have put in force a bar that they violated.  You would stand on that DV, and not send a "new" one.

 

Pweonally, I would let it be.  You were kinda contradictory in imposing a cease collection bar, and then participating in their collection on the debt.

Having settled, it is also kinda contradictory to condinue assert the debt as not being valid.

There is no more debt, so their is no issue over its amount.

And finally, even if you prevail in establishing a violation on their part, that would not itself by basis for compeliing deletion of their reporting from your CR,

Maybe a moral victory,but not CR deletion.

And pursuing the matter would almost assuredly kill any chance for their granting a good-will deletion.

 

My suggestion would be to continue to pursue a request for ther GW deletion, which would not be fostered by a contentious FDCPA violation complaint.

Message 4 of 5
Tdbremer
Established Member

Re: DV question

By the way, Robert, I must say your knowledge is impressive! Every post from you teaches me so much! I guess I meant to say violation of FDCPA and not "grounds for deletion". Smiley Happy
Message 5 of 5
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.