DV letter doesnt say must reply within 30 days

[glamchick]

I am going to use the following DV letter to send to a CA.  Is there a reason why non of the DV's Im finding state "must reply within 30 days"?  

CERTIFIED MAIL #: _______________________________________________________
Your Name
Your Address
YourTown,, State ZipCode

Debt Collection Company Name
Their address
Town, State ZipCode

Date:

Re: Debt Collection Company Name; Acct # Debt Collection Company #; Original Creditor Name; OC Acct #

To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on DATE. Be advised that this is a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested.
This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for FULL MEDIA VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that (a) the account is valid, (b) the amount allegedly owed is accurate, and (c) I have a contractual obligation to pay Debt Collection Company Name for this alleged debt.
All of the following MUST be provided to adequately validate the authenticity of the alleged debt AND provide proof of my contractual obligation to Debt Collection Company Name for this alleged debt:
• Signed credit application between myself and the original creditor
• Copies of all signed vouchers from the date account was opened until default
• Copies of all statements from the date account opened until default
• Proof of the statute of limitations
• Proof of agreement that you were hired by the Original creditor (creditor as defined by the FDCPA) or
• A copy of the contract Debt Collection Company Name purchased the alleged debt.
• If the alleged debt was purchased, provide a copy of an agreement between Debt Collection Company Name and myself, signed by me, stating that I have a contractual responsibility to Debt Collection Company Name for the alleged debt
• Provide proof that Debt Collection Company Name is bonded/Licensed for debt collecting in the State of Your State
Be advised that failing to provide ALL of the media requested to validate the alleged debt will invalidate any and all claims Debt Collection Company Name is asserting regarding this alleged debt. If Debt Collection Company Name can NOT provide all of the validation media requested above, ALL collection efforts MUST be stopped and the account MUST be DELETED from the Debt Collection Company Name. If you can NOT validate your claim, you can NOT, by law, collect on it, or SELL it to another collection agency. Also, reporting a debt to the credit reporting agencies that can not be validated is a violation of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), and carries a $2500 fine to be paid to me. I have two years to decide if I want to pursue this matter. PLEASE GIVE THIS MATTER THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES.
If your offices are able to provide all of the validating media as requested, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information, and during such time, all collection activity must cease and desist.
I am also stating, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment, and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by United States Postal Service.

Best Regards,

[Anonymous]

---

glamchick wrote:

I am going to use the following DV letter to send to a CA.  Is there a reason why non of the DV's Im finding state "must reply within 30 days"?  

---

With respect to the folks who have come up with these letters, I've always found they're a bit wordy.  Why do you need to spell out the law for a CA?  All you need for a DV is something like:

Dear CA,

This letter is to inform you that the validity of this debt is disputed.  I hereby request validation of this debt in accordance with my rights as specified in the FDCPA.

Sincerely,

Me

If they don't validate in the required time frame, tough for them.  It's not your job to tell them what the required time frame is.

If the validation they send you is insufficient yet they continue their collection activities, tough for them, as they've just committed a violation.  Again, it's not your job to tell them what the FDCPA requires of them.  They're supposed to know that.

Edit: Because I didn't know the difference between the FCRA and FDCPA for a second.  D'oh!

Message Edited by cheddar on 02-11-2008 08:21 AM

[glamchick]

Ok thank you but should I state in there must reply within 30 days?  Or does the CA already know that?

[Anonymous]

---

glamchick wrote:

Ok thank you but should I state in there must reply within 30 days?  Or does the CA already know that?

---

The question you should be asking is not whether the CA already knows that, but whether the CA should already know that.

The answer is that they should.  And if they don't, that is not your problem.

[braznyc]

The DV letter I used (thanks to Lady Scarlett) did have a please respond within 30 days. I dunno, I read it several times and it was in there. I like sending wordy things to the CA, as the letter is already written, only correcting the areas that need to be, so it fits my situation. I don't get why I should assume they're going to "know" or have my best interest at heart, or even play fair.

Hey call me jaded. But when you deal with a JDB like the one I have you take NO chances of them getting "off" or away with something. So I advocate for the spelled-out, long-winded, wordy versions!

[Anonymous]

As for 'more wordy" - the rights specified under FDCPA (and the others) is that all they have to provide is the name of the original creditor etc (those 4 or so things they list they will send if you dispute)..  The others come from JUDGES setting caselaw on what is appropriate to ensure you oue THEM this debt. (which is why the list and reference to the cases)

If I ever had to take them to court - much better to have them by the shorthairs (and not having provided the 'other stuff') than for them to be able to say that they gave you what you asked for.

[Anonymous]

---

braznyc wrote:
The DV letter I used (thanks to Lady Scarlett) did have a please respond within 30 days. I dunno, I read it several times and it was in there. I like sending wordy things to the CA, as the letter is already written, only correcting the areas that need to be, so it fits my situation. I don't get why I should assume they're going to "know" or have my best interest at heart, or even play fair.

Hey call me jaded. But when you deal with a JDB like the one I have you take NO chances of them getting "off" or away with something. So I advocate for the spelled-out, long-winded, wordy versions!

---

I think you miss my point.

You're right that you should not assume they're going to have your best interest at heart.

Think of it this way:  When you send a DV, are you hoping they validate or not?  Probably not.  So why would you want to help them in that process by telling them exactly what's required of them and how long they have to do it?

[Anonymous]

We will see if specifing all of it matters - I am filing complaints with 2 state AGs and the FTC over 'not getting 'the other stuff' (license, letter of assignment/contract of sale) - they did provide bare min per FDCPA.

The 30 days to relpy is law (and they 'should' know that it is and has been for several years).

Message Edited by Lady_Scarlet on 02-11-2008 11:54 AM

[Anonymous]

---

Lady_Scarlet wrote:

As for 'more wordy" - the rights specified under FDCPA (and the others) is that all they have to provide is the name of the original creditor etc (those 4 or so things they list they will send if you dispute)..  The others come from JUDGES setting caselaw on what is appropriate to ensure you oue THEM this debt. (which is why the list and reference to the cases)

If I ever had to take them to court - much better to have them by the shorthairs (and not having provided the 'other stuff') than for them to be able to say that they gave you what you asked for.

---

Yes, but their requirement to provide all of that comes from the FDCPA and associated caselaw; it does not come from the fact that you requested it specifically.

So if you list all of these things they're supposed to provide, and they provide them all to you, and they say "we gave her what she asked for!", you're now in a tougher situation because, well, yes they did give you what you asked for.

If on the other hand, you just tell them that you dispute the debt, and oh yeah, by the way, give me all the validation stuff you're required to give me, now they have to know what they need to give you in order to provide proper validation.

If they miss something or forget something, oh well, sucks to be them.

[braznyc]

I understand where you're coming from Chedder, and for the most part I agree. But the biggest difference is to me when you DV someone you have to be prepared for whatever comes, and that means it coming back validated. I'm not saying I want this to happen, not at all, but part of rebuilding my credit is paying those I owe, and getting those I don't to go away or not try to re-age or re-insert things past SOL etc. I don't want to give them a chance to interpret what's sufficient to validate a debt, so I'm okay with being redundant on the DV front.