I'm getting confused about some of SOL posts on here

[TheMarg]

So if a collection account is past the 30 day initial dispute window the CA doesn't have to verify the debt, right? Are you saying, though, that even if a debt has been with the CA for a few years, well past the initial 30 day dispute window, that if it is DV'd, they still have to stop collections activity until they verify? And if they don't verify within 30 days it should be removed from credit reports?

[Anonymous]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

There have been several decided cases on just that issue and the general conclusion is that, yes, filing a lawsuit is a collection activity. 

The actual summons is not considered a collection activity, but the filing of a complaint which initiates the lawsuit is.  Some states, such as NY, have even mandated that all paperwork related to a consumer credit lawsuit must have all the required FDCPA disclosures printed on them in plain view. 

---

I see. But once that DV is answered properly by the CA then they are free to sue if still within the SOL? So there is always the possiblity, no matter how slight, that a DV request could result in a lawsuit? (After proper response by the CA).

I stay confused (which is pretty common) about this.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

---

Once the CA gives a proper response to a DV, they are generally free to continue collection activities.  Of course, the requirements for a proper response to a DV are, at best, thin, but at least it gives one a general opportunity to see whether or not the debt is really theirs.  If not theirs, they can also stop a CA in its tracks by going through the identity theft process.

On a related note, personally I have yet to see a CA sue just because of a DV request, though I do believe it is possible.  The requirements for a proper DV response are so shabby that I doubt any CA -- if they really wanted -- with a legitimate debt couldn't easily meet them.  Going to court, though, would require much more documentation, especially if the debtor challenges the action.  More likely a CA would sue if they respond to a DV and then the debtor just flips them the bird.  That is why I think it is always a good idea to be prepared to negotiate or pay if the DV response shows the debtor that the debt really is theirs.

[Anonymous]

---

@TheMarg wrote:

So if a collection account is past the 30 day initial dispute window the CA doesn't have to verify the debt, right? Are you saying, though, that even if a debt has been with the CA for a few years, well past the initial 30 day dispute window, that if it is DV'd, they still have to stop collections activity until they verify? And if they don't verify within 30 days it should be removed from credit reports?

---

Generally, you are correct in that a CA does not have to answer an untimely made DV request.  Some states, however, operate differently.

The 30-day period runs, if not mistaken, from the time of initial written communication by the CA.  If they never contact you and you one day discover that they have been reporting for year on your credit reports, I would say the 30-day period runs from the time you discover their collections activities.

Under the FDCPA, CAs do not have to stop collection activities if your DV request is not timely made. 

Timely made DV request = cessation of acollection activities

Untimely made DV request = no cessation of collection activities.

If the DV request is timely made does the CA have to stop / remove CRA reporting until they properly respond?  I'd wait to see if RobertEG can answer that one.  Without looking through my files and notes, I'd say that if they are not currently reporting, they cannot start to report.  If they are already reporting, I believe they do not have to remove the tradeline, but cannot continue to update.

[guiness56]

If the TL is already on your report, they do not have to remove it just because they receive a DV.    If they cannot validate, they have to remove.

If it has not been reported, they cannot until they answer the DV.

[Anonymous]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

If the TL is already on your report, they do not have to remove it just because they receive a DV.    If they cannot validate, they have to remove.

If it has not been reported, they cannot until they answer the DV.

---

Help me understand.

If reported, it does not have to be removed if you DV. as long as the CA responds to the DV.  If they do not respond, they must remove it.  Did I understand that correctly?

How much time do they have to respond before having to remove?

[guiness56]

They need to be able to validate the debt.  Some CAs will respond to a DV wanting more information or with a dunning notice.

If they don't validate they have to remove the TL. 

I don't believe there is a time limit for them to do that but I am sure they could be prompted to do so.

[Anonymous]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

They need to be able to validate the debt.  Some CAs will respond to a DV wanting more information or with a dunning notice.

If they don't validate they have to remove the TL. 

I don't believe there is a time limit for them to do that but I am sure they could be prompted to do so.

---

If there's no time limit on validating, what's the time limit on removing?