Nervous.... sent 3 DV's, 1 DD, and 1 GW letters

[DaBears]

---

@kstmommy wrote:

DaBears: "until they validate the debt they are on a bar collection notices which means they can't update their tradeline or collect on it."

Ok, so say a couple weeks go by and they haven't validated yet, but they verify with the CRA that it's accurate, AND update the tradline (say the date), THEN they'd be in violation? Is that correct?

ETA: Throwing into the mix here, is the fact that it's past the SOL in Indiana. Does that give me more options?

---

Once they receive the DV they can not update their tradeline until they decide to validate. SOL is baically a time that a creditor or CA can sue. Once the SOL has expired then they can't proceed with legal activity. 

[kstmommy]

Thank you, DaBears. Two last clarifications. What EXACTLY constitutes as updating their tradeline? What step is next, should they update the tradelines before validating?

[DaBears]

Updating their tradeline would consist of anything within, Date of last activity, changing the DoFD, changing amount owed etc. They can not do anything within that account until they validate. They can't call, send notices update their tradeline while they have that DV in possession

[kstmommy]

Thank you. I'm going to carefully watch these, while waiting for responses.

I still don't understand why verifying doesn't count as well. I see a lot of conflicting information on this. You and others, say it's irrelevent. I read a lot of articles that disagree.

[aj1901]

So in theory, if you send a DV, then a dispute to the CRA, you whould have a higher chance of getting that item removed since they cant even validate it unless they respond to whoever sent the DV? Is that correct?

[guiness56]

---

@aj1901 wrote:

So in theory, if you send a DV, then a dispute to the CRA, you whould have a higher chance of getting that item removed since they cant even validate it unless they respond to whoever sent the DV? Is that correct?

---

That is called the 1 - 2 punch and not something we advocate on this forum.

[DaBears]

---

@aj1901 wrote:

So in theory, if you send a DV, then a dispute to the CRA, you whould have a higher chance of getting that item removed since they cant even validate it unless they respond to whoever sent the DV? Is that correct?

---

That would be unethical and is not allowed on the forums. 

• Discussion of illegal or unethical activities or providing links to other websites containing such information;

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/User-Guidelines-General/myFICO-Forums-Terms-of-Service/td-p/4

Community Leader, 

DaBears

[guiness56]

---

@kstmommy wrote:

Thank you. I'm going to carefully watch these, while waiting for responses.

I still don't understand why verifying doesn't count as well. I see a lot of conflicting information on this. You and others, say it's irrelevent. I read a lot of articles that disagree.

---

They are only verifying that the debt is valid to be posted.  It does not mean the debt is yours.  But, I would not do this.  I would leave the CRA out of it entirely.

For that matter, neither does a DV.  Once you get validation and you know it isn't yours do a direct dispute.  They then have to proof it is your debt.

Or do a FTC Fraud Affidavit.

[kstmommy]

Will do. Thank you all again for your help. I'll keep everyone updated in this thread.

[RobertEG]

When you file a dispute with a CRA, the FCRA REQUIRES the furnishr to respond to the CRA.

It is NOT a prohibited collection activity on their part.

I am aware that other web sites advocate the theory that a DV prohibits a debt collector from verifying the accuracy of their reporting to a CRA (which they refer to as a 1-2 Punch procedure), but that is, in my opinion, nonsense.  There is absolutely NO case law support for an assertion that the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from complying with their statutory requrement under the FCRA to investigate a dispute and respond to the CRA.  It is not an attempt to collect on the debt.