TX Dist Court set the new parameters of DV. I am not sure if it going to help you anyway but it does require the CA to be more deatiled when responding to DVs.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/4--13-cv-00544/Mack_v._Progressive_Fi...
I am more interested in this:
Other circuit courts addressing this provision of the FDCPA has determined that verification is not intended to give a debtor a detailed accounting of the debt to be collected. Instead, “[c]onsistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid.” Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 406; Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2011); Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006). In Clark, the Ninth Circuit adopted the standard as articulated by the Fourth Circuit, holding that “[a]t the minimum, ‘verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.’” Id. at 1173–1174 (quoting Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 406). In Dunham, the Eighth Circuit declined to set a high threshold. 663 F.3d at 1004.
More recently, the Sixth Circuit addressed the question of what verification means for purposes of section 1692g(b), and stated the following:
These cases suggest that the “baseline” for verification is to enable the consumer to “sufficiently dispute the payment obligation.” Although the answer to that question depends on the facts of a particular situation, the cases reflect that an itemized accounting detailing the transactions in an account that have led to the debt is often the best means of accomplishing that objective. Intuitively, such a practice makes good sense. In fact, it would likely lead to faster resolutions of disputes with those consumers who act in good faith, because it will either show a valid debt that a consumer acting in good faith will actually pay, uncover an error in the record of the debt leading to the cancellation of the debt, or reveal the underlying dispute between the parties that can then be resolved. Finally, such an approach is consonant with the
congressional purpose of the verification provision.
Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, 758 F.3d 777, 785 (6th Cir. 2014).
The Sixth Circuit determined the following:
The verification provision must be interpreted to provide the consumer with notice of how and when the debt was originally incurred or other sufficient notice from which the consumer could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation. This information does not have to be extensive. It should provide the date and nature of the transaction that led to the debt, such as a purchase on a particular date, a missed rental payment for a specific month, a fee for a particular service provided at a specified time, or a fine for a particular offense assessed on a certain date.
Plaintiff cites the Court to Haddad, and Defendants fail to address this case in its reply brief. The Court finds that the Haddad analysis is persuasive and adopts it. Now, the question is whether Defendants’ verification letter met this standard. The Court finds that Defendants’ verification letter does not meet this standard.
