Does a dispute restart the SOL?

[trnl2016]

I'm freaking out a bit right now. Sent off a DV and got a letter back from Midland Credit Management that they didn't find any inaccuracies and will report my account as disputed with the CRA. I did not, at any time, say I was disputing the debt... just that I was requesting validation for the account they were trying to collect from me. What ramifications does them submitting it as a dispute have? Does it restart the SOL? What, if anything, should I do? I'm considering filing a claim with the BBB on the grounds that they did not provide sufficient validation, but right now I'm more worried about the fact that they're submitting my DV as a dispute.

[RobertEG]

If they report a dispute to the CRA, then file a formal complaint with the CFPB.

You are correct... a DV request is a debt validation issue under the FDCPA, and not a dispute under the FCRA.

It does not reset the SOL for legal action if it was only a request for validation.

As for filing a complaint with the BBB over lack of validation, be aware that there is no requirment under the FDCPA that a debt collector provide validation, and no time period under which they must respond.  A DV, if timely, imposes a cease collection bar on the debt collector, not a requirment to provide validation.

No violation would occur unless and until they resume active collection on the debt without first having provided debt validation.

[Anonymous]

A dispute ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT restart an SOL.

But you're dealing with Midland here, who apparently wants the reputation of the hornet's nest you dare not kick. But they did something similar to me, I disputed a Midland debt for validation reasons (I believed it to be a falsely re-dated out of statute debt) and they refreshed some of the reporting dates to make it appear to be a fresh collection in the CRAs. I was furious.

Just continue the battle, to the tiniest detail, to force them to report only correct and true information. They will tell you things like they have no control over how things are reported, etc. But dispute them through the CRAs (don't use the automated system, explain the situation in a written letter or call them up) and it will eventually get sorted out. If you manage to get it to go away completely, let me know how you've done that, because the best I've been able to do is have them delete the payment history and report the dates correctly.

[trnl2016]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

If they report a dispute to the CRA, then file a formal complaint with the CFPB.

You are correct... a DV request is a debt validation issue under the FDCPA, and not a dispute under the FCRA.

It does not reset the SOL for legal action if it was only a request for validation.

As for filing a complaint with the BBB over lack of validation, be aware that there is no requirment under the FDCPA that a debt collector provide validation, and no time period under which they must respond.  A DV, if timely, imposes a cease collection bar on the debt collector, not a requirment to provide validation.

No violation would occur unless and until they resume active collection on the debt without first having provided debt validation.

---

Thanks for the info! Since I live in Texas, I invoked the Texas Finance Code. As I understand it, they must provide some specific info for DV and respond within 30 days. They responded within 30 days by sending a photocopy of a credit card statement and saying that their reportings are accurate and they will continue collection, but they'll submit the issue as disputed to the CRAs. I did not, at any time, request a dispute -- just sent a DV under Texas Finance Code. That's different, correct?

[gdale6]

---

@trnl2016 wrote:

---

@RobertEG wrote:

If they report a dispute to the CRA, then file a formal complaint with the CFPB.

You are correct... a DV request is a debt validation issue under the FDCPA, and not a dispute under the FCRA.

It does not reset the SOL for legal action if it was only a request for validation.

As for filing a complaint with the BBB over lack of validation, be aware that there is no requirment under the FDCPA that a debt collector provide validation, and no time period under which they must respond.  A DV, if timely, imposes a cease collection bar on the debt collector, not a requirment to provide validation.

No violation would occur unless and until they resume active collection on the debt without first having provided debt validation.

---

Thanks for the info! Since I live in Texas, I invoked the Texas Finance Code. As I understand it, they must provide some specific info for DV and respond within 30 days. They responded within 30 days by sending a photocopy of a credit card statement and saying that their reportings are accurate and they will continue collection, but they'll submit the issue as disputed to the CRAs. I did not, at any time, request a dispute -- just sent a DV under Texas Finance Code. That's different, correct?

---

Sounds like they met the condtions of the TX DV and they have correctly reported it that you are disputing the account and that they are contiuning to attempt collection.

[RobertEG]

The CRA reporting codes and scope of reportable disputes is limited to the FCRA and FCBA, as defned udner thte "Credit Reporting Resource Guide," which is the standard credit reporting manual used by each of the big-3 CRAs.

They do not code and are not a party to "disputes" that are related to debt collection practices matters under either federal (FDCPA) or state (TX Finance Code) processes.

It is not, in my opinion, a reportable "dispute" that is subject to CRA credit reporting.

[trnl2016]

Thanks to both of you above. So it sounds like (1) I should contact Midland to not enter a dispute, and (2) I should find out what satisfies a Texas DV.

gdale6, while it sounds like they have satisfied the DV requirement, I thought I read that they have to include some pretty specific info in the validation. I need to find out what, if anything, that is... because from my understanding a photocopy of a statement does not do it.

[RobertEG]

The Texas Code does not require documentation.

It reads:

"Tx Finance Code, Section 392.202(c)  Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, a third-party debt collector who initiates an investigation shall send a written statement to the individual:

(1)  denying the inaccuracy;

(2)  admitting the inaccuracy;  or

(3)  stating that the third-party debt collector has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy."

[trnl2016]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The Texas Code does not require documentation.

It reads:

"Tx Finance Code, Section 392.202(c)  Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, a third-party debt collector who initiates an investigation shall send a written statement to the individual:

(1)  denying the inaccuracy;

(2)  admitting the inaccuracy;  or

(3)  stating that the third-party debt collector has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy."

---

Interesting! That's what I thought based on what I read too, but based on the numerous threads floating around this forum about Texas DV, and the information on this website (http://www.bigtexcredit.com/resources/texas-credit-repair/tips-for-texans/has-the-debt-collector-ver... it appeared that there was some specific information that was needed to satisfy the DV. Looks like a bunch of misinformation floating around. Eek!