@RobertEG wrote:You can DV without a prior dunning notice. There is no requirement to have received dunning notice prior to sending a DV request. Any DV is timely until they have (1) sent you dunning notice, and (2) 30 days have passed since the date of the dunning notice.
I whole-heartedly support the advice NOT to include all of those non-statutory provisions in a DV. Simply request verification of the debt, and if additionally desired, the name and address of the original creditor.
A HA!
See, I knew the second I tried to be RobertEG, I mess something up 
Thanks for clarifying this!
-scott
@aot2009 wrote:>>I wasn't personally attacking you and I am not going to get into an argument with you about opinions.
Didn't say you were, not sure where you think I thought that, it's all good we are just communicating.
>>I am happy you had success with this method.
So am I and until it breaks I'll continue to do what works.
>>That letter is all over the web.
You mean variations of this letter but not this exact letter. Unless someone like me posted it in the other forums I use but I don't recall doing that.
>> I would be remissed if I didn't mention that most of what you asked for in that DV letter is NOT required by statutes in the FDCPA.
Just because it's required doesn't mean you can't ask for it.
>>I didn't say it wouldn't work. I didn't say it hasn't worked.
Understood and it has worked for me many many times.
>>Why would they divulge information just to appease a letter when they don't legally have to?
Because you assume they fully understand the law and the truth is most of them don't know or care of what's legal all they care about is getting you to pay them money.
I'm not speaking for all CA's but for portfolio I'm certainly referring to them.
>>but suppose someone were to use that DV letter and get a response from the CA with just the nuts and bolts validation... and they decide, well since they didn't send >>me what i asked for, they must not have it, and then sue the CA for misc violations only to find out the CA DID have all the information and documentation, they just >>didn't show it because they didn't have to... what then? the bluff has been called and you are toast.
The legal process is complicated and very lengthy it's not as cut and dry as you would think it's a huge long expense process.
>>You have shown it works, and others have as well. I just don't agree with it, and thats part of what makes credit repair essentially a game, as there are virutally >>hundreds of ways to tackle any situation.
I understand that is why I said it's your opinion, I'm okay with that.
Fair enough, as I edit my previous post, I didn't want to argue it.. haha
I think people are real passionate about what has and hasn't worked for them, so I apologize for my tone! 
-scott