Midland finally responds

[Shokk]

Was a good day for mail at my house.  Midland finally replied today.  I guess they can't be too stupid because they did reference TFC in their reply when I didn't cite it in my original DV letter.  And this is after I spoke with them and they told me I needed to DV the 3rd party who was handling the collection for them.  I sent that letter 2 days ago

They sent 2 seperate letters, one for each account saying the same as the rest have so far.  We've investigated your dispute and found you owe us, blah, blah, blah.

First letter, account 1:

Gives original account number.

Current amount owed.

OC name.

Midlan's internal account number.

Account 2:

Same thing and they included 3 copies of statements.

They did however, deny any innacuracy.  Am I citing the wrong part of the TFC?  I don't see anything in Sec. 392.202 where itmentions anything about validation.  Only they have to respond.  Help?

[DaBears]

What is the basis for your dispute? Need more info.

[Shokk]

I asking for debt validation from the CA.  Don't need a basis for dispute when asking for validation.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I have that right in Texas.

[DaBears]

Sorry when I was typing Tornado sirens went off. In TX they have to validate per TFC. I would send another DV and reference the Texas code.

[Shogun]

---

@DaBears wrote:

Sorry when I was typing Tornado sirens went off. In TX they have to validate per TFC. I would send another DV and reference the Texas code.

---

+1

Sirens?   Get underground, don't make me come get you!

[Shokk]

---

@DaBears wrote:

Sorry when I was typing Tornado sirens went off. In TX they have to validate per TFC. I would send another DV and reference the Texas code.

---

Lol, I did this already in my second letter.  That's why I'm asking more questions.  I see nowhere in Texas Finance Code Section 392.202 that says how they have to validate.  Only they have 3 options to respond.

(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.

Am I missing the actual validation part?  Technically, what they sent doesn't even cover FDCPA, but I'm using TFC instead since I'm way outside the normal 30 day response window.

[Shogun]

If they don't respond they have to delete.  This is above and beyond what the feds require in their DV process.  

[Shokk]

Alright, now I'm getting really confuesd.  They did respond.  I said that already.  Their response does not meet FDCPA.  I didn't believe it met TFC 392, but I can't find anywhere in that code where it mentions anything about validation, only that they must respond...

[Shogun]

---

@Shokk wrote:

Was a good day for mail at my house.  Midland finally replied today.  I guess they can't be too stupid because they did reference TFC in their reply when I didn't cite it in my original DV letter.  And this is after I spoke with them and they told me I needed to DV the 3rd party who was handling the collection for them.  I sent that letter 2 days ago

They sent 2 seperate letters, one for each account saying the same as the rest have so far.  We've investigated your dispute and found you owe us, blah, blah, blah.

First letter, account 1:

Gives original account number.

Current amount owed.

OC name.

Midlan's internal account number.

Account 2:

Same thing and they included 3 copies of statements.

They did however, deny any innacuracy.  Am I citing the wrong part of the TFC?  I don't see anything in Sec. 392.202 where itmentions anything about validation.  Only they have to respond.  Help?

---

This is a proper validation of debt in my opinion.  I believe it to meet the guidlines concerning a proper validation.

What else were you expecting?

[Shokk]

This is what I've seen posted here by guiness and others.  Seen the same thing on the web and another site, but can't find it in TFC 392.

Texas Finance Code Section 392.202 requires a debt collection agency or credit bureau to provide the alleged debtor with specific information concerning their debt including but not limited to:

• The name of the original creditor
• The original date of default or non-payment of the debt
• The date the debt was transferred from the original creditor to the third party debt collector
• The original balance
• The current balance
• and surety bond information

Is this accurate?  Does anyone know for sure?  Is there another part of the Texas code I need to be reading?