Lots of different issues....
First,, there is no statute or reg that specicically states that a debt collector must send a collection ("dunning") notice within any set period after reporting to a CRA.
The statutory requirement is FDCPA 809(a), which mandates a collection notice within 5 days after an "initial communication with the consumer."
While the statute does not mention credit reporting as being an "initial communication," there is case law that has interpreted the dunning notice requirment of section 809(a) to include reporting to as CRA as a triggering event.
You could, if you chose, assert that they have violated FDCPA 809(a) by filing a formal complaint with the CFPB, or even initiating your own civil action.
However, past treatment of such violations have not been persued by the CFPB unless they are known to have involved hundreds, if not thouands, of consumers.
It has not been considered a serious matter. Additionally, lack of timely dunning notice is not basis for requiring deletion of the reported collection, and would only subject the debt collector to sanctions, and as such, are not normally pursued by consumers. Thus,, debt collectors do not generally shake in their boots when a lack of timely dunning notice assertion is made.
When you send a debt validation request, if you are invoking the provisions of the TX Finance Code, you must clearly identity your request as under that code.
Sending a DV under teh provisions of FDCPA 809(b) does not bring in to play the additional requirments of the TX code.
Assuming you sent both, there is no time peirod for respose to a DV under the FDCPA, but the debt collector must respond to a request under the TX Finance Code within 30 days. If you also filed a dispute and they provided adequate information to validate, then that response would, in my opinion, constutute adequate reply to any DV.
To assert otherwise would place form over substance.
There is no need for any second DV request. A consumer is not reqired to have first received any communication from a debt collector in order to request validation.
If you sent a DV prior to any communication or dunning notice, you have a timely DV that imposed a cease collection bar. Howerver, a DV sent after credit reporting is not retroactive, and thus has not effect on any prior reporting they may have made, or require its deletion.
You can choose to pursue an assertion of lack of timely dunning notice, but in my opinion, I would not do so.
You now have a substnative response, and I would move forward on the merits.
Is the debt in fact valid, and the only issue is one of possible violation of timeliness requirements?
