08-23-2012 05:06 PM
Received a dunning letter, and immediately faxed and snail mailed a DV letter to the CA.....Have proof that they received the DV letter through certified mail with signature. Curious as to the steps to proceed if they don't respond to the DV........
08-23-2012 10:18 PM
08-24-2012 05:44 AM - edited 08-24-2012 05:47 AM
Their is NO basis for sending a request/dispute to the CRA for deletion based on lack of response to a DV request. It is a debt collection practices matter between the consumer and the debt collector, to which the CRAs are not a party.
A DV request sets no time period on the debt collector for response. If the DV was timely, it invokes a cease collection bar upon them until such time as they choose to respond. If they continue debt collection activities without first providing debt verification, your recourse is to file a complaint with the FTC, your local BBB, state AG, etc., or file your own civil action.
If they continue to comply with the cease collection bar, you wait. It is within their rights to trade any continance of collection on the debt for non-response to a DV request.
It creates a state of limbo......
08-24-2012 12:11 PM
Maybe Im a little rusty RObert but if the CA does not validate and the DV is timely then if the CA doesnt respond to the DV then they must cease all collection activity, therefore wouldnt a dispute have the item deleted if the CA is barred from collection activity(wouldnt that mean verifying to the CRA that debt is valid)until they furnish debt validation??
08-24-2012 12:28 PM
08-24-2012 03:58 PM
There is a process advocated on other credit repair sites referred to as the "1-2 Punch process" that is built upon, in my opinion, the erroneous assumption that while under a cease collection bar, a debt collector is precluded from verifying accuracy back to a CRA upon filing of a consumer dispute.
That process recommends sending a timely DV, then immediately filing a dispute. Under the 1-2 Punch theory, verification back to the CRA is a prohibited collection on the debt. Thus, lacking verification, the CRA must then delete.
In my opinion, that process is nonsense. When a consumer files a dispute, it imposes a statutory requirement on the CRA to forward it to the party who reported the infomation, and a statutory requirement under FCRA 623(b) for that furnisher to respond back to the CRA. They would thus be in violation of the FCRA if they failed to respond. It is nonsensical to me that a statutorily mandated action on their part could or would be considered a prohibited debt collection activity.
There is no case law to my knowledge to support such a contorted interpretation that the FDCPA prohibits one from complying with the FCRA. I doubt any court would ever support such a contention.
08-26-2012 11:58 AM
I wasnt aware of what you referred to as the one two punch but wouldnt the lack of validating the debt conclude that they dont have the necessary proof of it being a legitimate debt that is owed otherwise CA would just put on any debt to ones CR and the consumer would never be able to legitimatly have it removed(not correct not owed zombie etc.)Then DV is nothing more than bull and a CA is really free to do whatever they wish. therfore the consumer is in the water without a paddle. If anyone else has any info on this please chime in. While there may not be any caselaw directly associated with this issue, I feel that the CRA would in their part at least understand that due dilligence has not been done by the CA and therefore delete. Not arguing the point merely stating common sense. I do not think the FCRA would give such a liberty to the CA's as it was written I believe mostly to protect the consumer. Anyone on this????????????????
08-26-2012 01:11 PM
Thanks Annielorie.....My thoughts exactly.....as to a CA can put you out there in the water with no paddle. If the consumer is required to follow certain process why shouldn't all parties have to comply to a degree.
The reason I brought this topic up is the account is listed as CACH LLC on my credit report, but was turned over to Pezzuto Law Firm. I got a dunning notice from them that they wanted to try to work things out on the account.....I have an issue with the account. It was poor choice on my part taking the payday loan.....Doing a bit of research I found that payday loans are illegal in Pennsylvania, and even when I read about permissible interest and such, they are way off. This is my reasoning for requesting the debt validation. I want them to outline what the original loan amount was. By Pennsylvania law they can only charge 6% interest which is allowable in the state. Again I run into conflict, knowing the loan is illegal, and me being dumb, but the OC also breaking law providing the loan, but at the same time won't pay $1600.00 on a $400.00 loan when state law states their interests and fees are illegal!!!!!
08-26-2012 01:15 PM