Debt verification under FDCPA 809(b) requires the debt collector to conduct an investigation, and obtain, based on that investigation, verification that the debt is considered legitimate. That determination must then be conveyed to the consumer before they can resume collection on the debt.
Two issues are raised when a response is received.
1. Is the verification sufficient, and
2. If not sufficient, what to do?
As to issue 1, the DV process does not require the debt collector to send the consumer documentation or proof to support their finiding of verification.
It requires a reasonable reinvestigation, and making a determination that they reasonably consider is supported by their investigation.
Thus, debt verification is your assurance that they have at least stated on the record that they have taken steps to ensure that their collection is not spurious, such as an initiation of collection by merely having obtained a list of similar names in your state, and shot-gunning collection notices to theri addresses.
That may seem, at first blush, not to be much of a "verification," but if supporting documenation were to be required under the adminisrative DV process, it would become a legal fact-finding process that would require both parties to provide ALL documentation, and a judge to make a determination of what it does or does not prove.
Any documentation that a debt collector were to send is most likely to be asserted as being incomplete, or insufficient to prove the legtimacy. There is simply no judge to rule on sufficiency or content of any docuentation, so it is not a part of the administrative process. You get their statement that they have obtained sufficient documentation to reasonably support conduct of collection.
Other requested items are not required under the FDCPA, such as proof of licensing, which is a state issue, or expiration of SOL, which is the consumer's obligation to assert and prove at trilal, not the another party's obligation to prove. Only a judge can rule of expiration of an SOL, not a creditor or debt collector.
In your case, they have stated that they conducted an investigation, and that it supports their finding of verifcation of the debt. In my opinion, it is adequate verification.
As for issue 2, if the consumer considers that any response from a debt collector is not adequate verification, that is the consumer's postion.
The result wold be that the consumer considers them to still be under a cease collection, as no verification has been provided. It is not a violation of the FDCPA to send a response that they consider to be adequate verification. Even if it was clearly an inadequate verification, it would be the same as having sent no response.
Violation of the FDCPA would then occur, at least in the opinion of the consumer, at such time when the debt collector conducts some additional collection activity that would violate their continued cease collection bar. Then, and onl then, would a consumer have basis for either a complaint to the CFPB for violation of the FDCPA, or for initiating their own legal action against the debt collector for that asserted violation of their cease collection bar.
In summary, in my opinion, you have adequate debt verification, and they are now permitted to resume active collection on the debt.
Your next step is either to now deal with the collection on the merits, or to take action supporting a contention that they cannot conduct collection activities until they provide the informtion you assert is necessary to support an adequate verification.
