Shady Debt Collector - Need Advice!

[maelstromB]

Hello everyone, I live in Minnesota and just a few days ago I received a settlement offer in the mail from a company called Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. They list the OC as Xcel Energy Services Inc. Only thing is, there is nothing on my credit report and I'm almost 100% sure the remaining balance on my Xcel Energy account was paid in full right around the time I moved out from that apartment 3 years ago. Weird part is, all I got was a settlement offer... they never sent a dunning letter and nowhere in the text of the letter does it state that I have 30 days to dispute this debt. They even list in my current mailing address an apt # for the last place I lived at, even though I do not currently live in an apt. Also, the wording seems really fishy to me.. 

Here is the full text of the letter:

"Dear XXX

If you have the ability, I have been advised that I can accept 80% of your total balance due as settlement in full of your account. The full settlement amount of $196.82 must be received in my office by an agreed upon date. If you are interested in taking advantage of this offer call me within 14 days.

Even if you are unable to take advantage of this offer, please contact me to see what terms can be worked out on your account.

This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector.

Sincerely,

[name redacted]

Debt Collector

This collection agency is licensed by Minnesota Department of Commerce." 

Anyways, I was going to send a DV letter out to these goons because I believe they're just phishing here with this letter. There was nothing else attached, just the one page with the above text.

So I was wondering if anyone could help shine a light on this for me? Is it legal for them to send me a settlement offer without ever having sent a dunning letter explaining that I have 30 days to dispute this debt?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much!  

[RobertEG]

There is nothing illegal about the letter itself.  It is what they did not do thereafter that is the violation.

Their letter was clearly an "initial communication with the consumer," and as such, triggered their statutory requirement under FDCPA 809(a) to send the consumer a collection (dunning) notice within 5 days thereafter.

Absent dunning notice, any DV you send will be timely.  If they have not yet reported to a CRA, sending a DV will prevent them from doing so until such time as they have provided debt verification.

If you wish to up the pressure, compose a letter of complaint to the FTC for their violation of FDCPA 809(a), and include a cc: of that complaint as an attachement to your DV.  That will get their attention.

[maelstromB]

Thank you very much for you help! I just have a couple of question to your reply, RobertEG. 

Okay, so I checked out the DV section here on the forums and composed a brief DV letter:

"DATE: 06/12/2012            REF: USPS CERTIFIED MAIL xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Dear Convergent Representative,

I received your letter claiming I owe you a debt. Under FDCPA 809(a), send validation of this debt. I request that you verify the amount of the debt by providing an itemized listing. I additionally request that you provide the name and address of the original creditor for the alleged debt.

Best Regards,"

Is there anything else you think I should add in that letter such as a mention about my legal rights if they have already reported to the CRAs about this debt?

Also, could you provide an example of what a complaint to the FTC would look like for something such as this?  

[rckstrscott]

---

@maelstromB wrote:

Thank you very much for you help! I just have a couple of question to your reply, RobertEG. 

Okay, so I checked out the DV section here on the forums and composed a brief DV letter:

"DATE: 06/12/2012            REF: USPS CERTIFIED MAIL xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Dear Convergent Representative,

I received your letter claiming I owe you a debt. Under FDCPA 809(a), send validation of this debt. I request that you verify the amount of the debt by providing an itemized listing. I additionally request that you provide the name and address of the original creditor for the alleged debt.

Best Regards,"

Is there anything else you think I should add in that letter such as a mention about my legal rights if they have already reported to the CRAs about this debt?

Also, could you provide an example of what a complaint to the FTC would look like for something such as this?  

---

I would leave out the itemized listing, there really isn't a need for that, and they don't have to provide..

But the rest of the DV looks good.. Short and sweet for the DVs, the other ones you see online are just nonsense..

[RobertEG]

I would definately leave in the request for an itemized listing.  A consumer cannot evaluate the adequacy of the amount of overall debt asserted without an itemization of the asserted debt.   While not specfically required under FDCPA 809(b), the case law is replete with holdings that itemization of the debt is necessary to advise the consumer of the amount of the debt.

Without it, you have no way of knowing if they are asserting improper interest and fees, attorney charges, etc., that may not be proper under FDCPA 808(1), which references items that cannot be collected.

[maelstromB]

Good to know. I will keep it in there.

Do you guys have any advice or suggestions regarding my other questions?

[rckstrscott]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

I would definately leave in the request for an itemized listing.  A consumer cannot evaluate the adequacy of the amount of overall debt asserted without an itemization of the asserted debt.   While not specfically required under FDCPA 809(b), the case law is replete with holdings that itemization of the debt is necessary to advise the consumer of the amount of the debt.

Without it, you have no way of knowing if they are asserting improper interest and fees, attorney charges, etc., that may not be proper under FDCPA 808(1), which references items that cannot be collected.

---

Ok, I get what you are saying...

I think I am confusing those DV letters than have 8 million requests demanded.. such as the original media, signed documents, all that junk..

-scott