Sent DV nearly two years ago and they didn't respond, now they are trying to collect again

[guiness56]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

That may be a tough interpretation of the statute.

They had a hiatus in collection authority.  Sending a new DV once they re-enter the arena could just as logicially be considered a requirement of section 809(a) based on their now reinitiation of collection on the debt.  To contend that it is willful violation of a cease collection bar imposed by a prior DV is a real stretch.

It is not associated with credit reporting or with any other party or efftort to collect on the debt other than an advisement to the consumer.  The cease collection issue is addressed by the new DV period provided.

Just my opinion, but I would not consider their notice to be a violation.

With the assertion being violation of the statute, I agree that the venue would be a complaint to the FTC, who has actual enforcement authority, and not a party such as a BBB.

---

What do you mean re-enter the arena?  If a CA is allowed not to DV, then send the debt elsewhere, get it back and send a dunning letter again, what is the point of the FDCPA validation process in the first place?

They took a hiatus because they did not validate.

They did not respond in the first place, why should they be able to send a dunning notice and not be held accountable.

If OP sends another DV, the process could start all over again and will get nowhere with this debt.

[RobertEG]

Dunning notice alone is basically an advisement of consumer rights required under the statute.

My point is that upon re-acquiring collection authority, advisement to a consumer of their rights, when the statute states that they must do so upon initial communication with a consumer, can very effectively be considered to be a statutory mandate rather than a barred collection activity.

One could of course assert that they are attempting to subvert the statute by not responding to the prior DV, but termination of their pior collection authority terminated collection on the debt, so a new collection could cautiously be viewed by them as triggering new advisement.

I could just as easlily see a consumer screaming if the debt collector re-acquired authority and did not provide advisement of debt verification rights.

Being advised of one's rights is pretty tough to assert as a prohibited collection practice.

Just my view.  It would be interesting to get the view of a court.......

[guiness56]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Dunning notice alone is basically an advisement of consumer rights required under the statute.

My point is that upon re-acquiring collection authority, advisement to a consumer of their rights, when the statute states that they must do so upon initial communication with a consumer, can very effectively be considered to be a statutory mandate rather than a barred collection activity.

One could of course assert that they are attempting to subvert the statute by not responding to the prior DV, but termination of their pior collection authority terminated collection on the debt, so a new collection could cautiously be viewed by them as triggering new advisement.

I could just as easlily see a consumer screaming if the debt collector re-acquired authority and did not provide advisement of debt verification rights.

Being advised of one's rights is pretty tough to assert as a prohibited collection practice.

Just my view.  It would be interesting to get the view of a court.......

---

Ok.  I see.  I would send another DV and see what happens.