DV no response

[Anonymous]

 I had sent out a DV CMRRR almost 2 months ago and have not heard anything yet, I then sent a copy of the letter to the CBs , disputing the CA. Should I send the CA another letter, and if so, anyone got a link to one . How long should the CBs take to investigate this?  On  Transunion , the OC is gone and the CA is on there as a collection. On Experian, the OC is gone and the CA is on there as an ACCOUNT. On Equifax. the OC and the CA are on there as ACCOUNTS, but no collection. Does this sound weird. Any suggestions. Thanks

[Anonymous]

Send this to the CA CMRRR - make only necessary changes, do not sign and be prepared to back it up with action

Company
Address 1
Address 2
City, State Zip

Date

RE: Account XXXXX-XXXX-XXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam:

I'm sure you know, under FDCPA Section 809 (b), you are not allowed to pursue collection activity until the debt is validated. You should be made aware that in TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity.

As of ( DATE that THEY received your letter) You have refused to validate this debt.Therfore you are in violation of FDCPA.

While I prefer not to litigate, I will use the courts as needed to enforce my rights under the FDCPA.

I look forward to an uneventful resolution of this matter, as this debt was PAID in FULL (year)

I request that all contact with me be in writing, and only when you can provide adequate validation of this alleged debt. To refresh your memory on what constitutes legal validation, I am giving a list of the required documentation:

• Complete payment history, the requirement of which has been established via Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509 and
• Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the original creditor.
• Letter of sale or assignment from the original creditor to your company. (Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.) Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002) - Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff's debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.
• Intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt by you, the collection agency.

As you are already in violation, I expect all reference to this account be deleted from my credit report, as this entry and any update of such entry will be considered another violation.

Thank You,

TYPE YOUR NAME.....DO NOT SIGN

[sonogirl]

Dang, if I was a CA I'd be shaking in my boots This letter is very scary Lady Scarlet I think this one will be the magic touch for me also! Thanks

[Anonymous]

I have read elsewhere that quoting legal cases in these letters generally gets them dropped in the circular file.

Second, after receiving the letter, if I am not mistaken, they can simply file litigation and not provide you anything until discovery (assuming the debt is truly legit and they know it is).

Curious if anyone has run into the case of 'quiet but litigious' as I describe and have been sued after sending the DV?

[Anonymous]

Well if this is a VALID DV-

I would have to say filing suit WOULD BE collection activity- and a violation.

---

JimmyMagno wrote:

I have read elsewhere that quoting legal cases in these letters generally gets them dropped in the circular file.

Second, after receiving the letter, if I am not mistaken, they can simply file litigation and not provide you anything until discovery (assuming the debt is truly legit and they know it is).

Curious if anyone has run into the case of 'quiet but litigious' as I describe and have been sued after sending the DV?

---

[Anonymous]

If I am not mistaken, CA can refuse to respond to your DV.  CA can inform CC of zealous action by consumer.

CC can pull account from CA and refer issue to law firm.

Law firm can file legal action without contacting your prior to filing.

To you, Joe Consumer, this simply looks like silence after DV. 

So you, Joe Consumer, keep sending meaningless letters to CA.  Sure, technically, CA now would have to remove themselves from your credit report and you could, hypothecally, file a legal action against CA....

But meanwhile, you don't realize that during this 60 day period when you are sending off lots of response letters to the CA and thinking I AM KICKIN' BUTT, that legal proceedings are being initiated against you, all in silence by another entity.

By the way, I have read, this is a technique used by Junk Debt purchasers.  Ever ask yourself why a Junk Debt purchaser would use a 3rd party collection agency? 

Message Edited by JimmyMagno on 03-16-2008 01:56 PM

[Anonymous]

---

JimmyMagno wrote:

If I am not mistaken, CA can refuse to respond to your DV.  CA can inform CC of zealous action by consumer.

CC can pull account from CA and refer issue to law firm.

Law firm can file legal action without contacting your prior to filing.

To you, Joe Consumer, this simply looks like silence after DV. 

So you, Joe Consumer, keep sending meaningless letters to CA.  Sure, technically, CA now would have to remove themselves from your credit report and you could, hypothecally, file a legal action against CA....

But meanwhile, you don't realize that during this 60 day period when you are sending off lots of response letters to the CA and thinking I AM KICKIN' BUTT, that legal proceedings are being initiated against you, all in silence by another entity.

By the way, I have read, this is a technique used by Junk Debt purchasers.  Ever ask yourself why a Junk Debt purchaser would use a 3rd party collection agency? 

Message Edited by JimmyMagno on 03-16-2008 01:56 PM

---

I thought that was the whole purpose of making sure CAs were outside of SOL when before you DV them.  If you can't be sued due to SOL then you can't be sued - by either party - correct?

[Anonymous]

Right,

But I did not see this post stating that they are out of SOL (did I miss it?).  I just want to be clear that a DV with lots of legal language is a very dangerous tool during the SOL.  In other words, be careful what your wish for.

I assume the advice is to DV with lots of strong language, only after SOL.

During SOL, silence or soft worded DV?  What do the experts suggest?

Message Edited by JimmyMagno on 03-16-2008 02:14 PM

[Anonymous]

---

JimmyMagno wrote:

Right,

But I did not see this post stating that they are out of SOL (did I miss it?).  I just want to be clear that a DV with lots of legal language is a very dangerous tool during the SOL.  In other words, be careful what your wish for.

I assume the advice is to DV with lots of strong language, only after SOL.

During SOL, silence or soft worded DV?  What do the experts suggest?

Message Edited by JimmyMagno on 03-16-2008 02:14 PM

---

Oh, I guess I didn't notice it either.  I am assuming that troyb did it with that in mind.  But I believe he did as I think this is a follow-up post and he'd mentioned the SOL in a previous post.

[Anonymous]

Just so all who read this post know.

What do the experts suggest when using a DV.

Only DV after SOL?

What do you do during SOL?

I suggest a primer on when one should lay low vs when someone should DV would be of great value.

this would be Extremely useful.  Like some simple bullets on how to deal with a CA during the various phases (with original CC, sold to JDB, etc). Something like:

• Account recently defaulted and you are contacted by a CA.  Do XXXXX.

...

• Don't use a DV with lots of legal language during SOL.

I don't portend to be this expert, so others with great expertise are encourage to put together a primer on this whole topic of how to handle a CA and when to do what 

Message Edited by JimmyMagno on 03-16-2008 02:41 PM