I was of course very clear in my DV letter that I was requesting a Validation of the debit they claim I owe, but insted they sent Verification trying to play games.
I'm thinking a very firm responce letter is in order, with threat of legal action, if further debit collection atempts are made with out proper validation. My question is this being most likely an obvious stall & confuse tactic, that I'm sure is very common with them, how have others taken up responce to this obvious atempt to play games with wording?
I recived the same cut & paste Verification responce to two Validation attempts for two seprate debits they are trying to collect on. Any suggestions on how to respond other than very firmly?
I despise these people. I have my own tatic that I am working on/using. With that being said, this sounds like you need to wait for RobertEG comments on this or someone with a bit more knowledge then myself.
FDCPA 809(b), in its title, refers broadly to validation of debts.
It is a comprehensive term that encompasses verification of the debt plus possible other items set forth in that section of statute, such as a copy of a judgement if one exists, and, if also specifically requested by the consumer, the name and address of the original creditor.
If the debt has no legal judgment and the DV did not additionally request the name and address of the original creditor, then validation is fulfilled by statement that they have obtained verification of the debt, and a statement of its current amount.
Verification does not, under the statute, require production of documentary evidence to support their statement of verification.
I dont see a violation of section 809(b).
Additionally, if you dont consider their response to constitute adequate validation, that does not render their attempt to do so a violation.
It would simply remain an unvalidated request. Violation would occur if and when they commenced collection activities without having provided what is considered adequate debt validation. You could then bring action for violation of their cease collection bar, and get the issue of adequacy of validation before a party authorized to rule on the legal sufficiency.