Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
Re: Dunning Letter

There is a process advocated on other credit repair sites referred to as the "1-2 Punch process" that is built upon, in my opinion, the erroneous assumption that while under a cease collection bar, a debt collector is precluded from verifying accuracy back to a CRA upon filing of a consumer dispute.

That process recommends sending a timely DV, then immediately filing a dispute.  Under the 1-2 Punch theory, verification back to the CRA is a prohibited collection on the debt.  Thus, lacking verification, the CRA must then delete.

 

In my opinion, that process is nonsense.  When a consumer files a dispute, it imposes a statutory requirement on the CRA to forward it to the party who reported the infomation, and a statutory requirement under FCRA 623(b) for that furnisher to respond back to the CRA.  They would thus be in violation of the FCRA if they failed to respond.  It is nonsensical to me that a statutorily mandated action on their part could or would be considered a prohibited debt collection activity.

There is no case law to my knowledge to support such a contorted interpretation that the FDCPA prohibits one from complying with the FCRA.  I doubt any court would ever support such a contention.