DV response.....next step help

[tipofthespork]

Thanks Robert. So essentially im stuck. They can't update the collection but I cant remove it. They haven't reported/updated anything since August 2010, so the likelihood they will is slim to none.

[DaveSignal]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The CRAs are not a party to the DV process.  DV requests are debt collection practice matters under the FDCPA, and are between the consumer and the debt collector.

You simply have an unanswered request for debt verification.  That is not a disputable item.

---

roger that.   Ignore what I was talking about sending debt validation to the CRAs (that is what I always thought I was doing, but I guess this is always just another dispute).  Robert seems to know what he is talking about.

[tipofthespork]

Robert is extremely knowledgable. Sometimes you won't like what he has to say, but normally it's because he's right and you realize you've got more work to do.

[calihlove75]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The CRAs are not a party to the DV process.  DV requests are debt collection practice matters under the FDCPA, and are between the consumer and the debt collector.

They have requested unnecessary information.  You can refuse.  So the DV request simply remains unverified. They remain under a cease collection bar. They have commited no vioation unless they commence collection without first providing the requested verification.

There is no provision for a consumer imposing any time period on a debt collector for response to a DV.  Residents of Texas can initiate a separate process under the Texas debt collection practices statute, which does compel a response within 30 days, but that does not apply to DVs under the federal FDCPA.

You simply have an unanswered request for debt verification.  That is not a disputable item.

---

I guess I do not understand the whole validating process. Wouldn't continuing to let it report, despite not providing evidence the person owes be considered 'collection activity'? Lets say a person requested validation from the CA and they didn't respond. Couldn't it be disputed with the CRA and if it came back verified, wouldn't that be considered a violation of a ceasing to collect?

[tipofthespork]

I like that question. Maybe Robert or another seasoned contributor will answer

[calihlove75]

Found this on another site and it is the direction I plan on taking if needed.

"under FDCPA Section 809 (b), you are not allowed to pursue collection activity until the debt is validated.  You should be made aware that in TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity. "

Edited to remove a link to a forum that isn't allowed on here. A copy of that letter is on several threads within myFICO though. - llecs, myFICO moderator

[jamie123]

I have been cleaning up my wife's credit and I wrote the CRA disputing 2 items on the report stating "they aren't mine" and "please open an investigation into this matter to prove that they really are in fact my debts." Both items were deleted.

I think that works the same as a DV, just using slightly different terminology.

Jamie

[llecs]

---

@calihlove75 wrote:

Found this on another site and it is the direction I plan on taking if needed.

"under FDCPA Section 809 (b), you are not allowed to pursue collection activity until the debt is validated.  You should be made aware that in TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity. "

---

I had briefed this case in here before and due to time, putting kiddos to bed, and sipping a root beer beverage, but I will throw out the background. Boatley rented an apartment and was either evicted or moved out with a balance owed (can't remember without looking it up). Anyway she owed and didn't pay. It then went to collections to Diem Corp. who then reported on her CRs. Boatley sent a timely DV letter inside the FDCPA's mandated 30-day requirement per Sect. 809. They signed for the DV and instead of validating, they reported and sued her in small claims court. She lost and had to pay the balance, interest, fees, etc.

Boatley then decided to appeal the judge's ruling in US Disctrict Court. The court ruled in her favor on 4 items pertaining to her case. One of these items had to do with sending a timely DV. The judge ruled that because the DV was timely, per the FDCPA, and the CA never validated, they were in automatic violation of the FDCPA when they failed to delete upon receipt of a timely DV and when they sued Boatley.

The judge's paraphrased statement of "reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity" refers to any CA that is reporting inside the initial 30 days from that dunning. It doesn't apply to the reporting of CAs that had been there for over a month or CAs that sent their dunning letter over a month ago.

BTW, I used to use the same DV letter referenced above, but later simplified it. Any DV works well, IMO, so as long as it invokes the FDCPA.

[llecs]

---

@tipofthespork wrote:
So I DV'd one of the CA's on my CR. the response I got back was a letter asking me to provide the account number (I gave them the partial that was on my CR). Then they wanted the original creditor, amount owed, my SSN, phone number, and DOB. isn't this exactly what they are supposed to provide me? Since the letter states without the info they request they can't verify the debt, is thismgroundsmfor deletion? What's my next move?

---

Never do a CA's job. I'd never ever provide that info. I would give them my name, my address including any former address, but I'd never give them my SSN, DOB, specially the OC and the amount owed.

I'd retype the DV. I would customize it telling them the date of your first attempt, when they signed for it, and when they responded back. I'd tell them that they failed to provide information per Sect. 809(a). I'd also include a mention within the letter that they are in violatiuon of Sect. 809(b) because collection activities and communications after receiving a debt validation letter pursuant to the Act is unlawful if they failed to provide validation. That would be the meat of it and might add a few things more depending on my state's laws and the language of their letters. But I would conclude with a demand to validate or delete. Now legally, if the debt had been there for a while and that 30 days is long expired, then a DV is legally meaningless. But I'd push back just because of their letter to me. If they verified and I agreed, then I'd offer a PFD.