Is it ever better NOT to DV?

[Jacque383]

When is it better to not ask for validation and simply wait for the baddies to drop off your credit report?  Especially where medical collections are concerned.

For example, I sent out a couple of DV letters for some medical collections last week. They arrived (per return of green card).  These medical collections were from 2003/2004….This morning I check my scores (TC) and my scores are down. Not only are my scores down, but  2 of these agencies hadn’t updated their reporting date for over a year, however, now it shows as being currently reported. In addition, there are hard inquiries on my credit report from these companies.  Obviously this brought my scores down, but I can’t help but wonder at what point is it best to just leave it be, allowing them  to fall off naturally, even if were looking at years down the road before they fall off our reports.

Recently, I was able to refinance one of my properties with the bank telling me that most lenders overlook medical collections. I wonder if that holds true for applying for credit cards? If these are overlooked items, and disputing lowers our scores, what is the benefit to DV’s when there is no guarantee that it could come off our credit reports?

I guess I’m trying to figure out if I did the right thing or not. Maybe time will tell as I’m just beginning this process, so I’m hoping some of you with more knowledge can hel p to relieve my mind.

Thanks so much.

[Anonymous]

If you are getting close to SOL you are better off not "waking the monster". I DV'd 2 CA  and disputed with all 3 CRA and was successful getting one deleted but one of the other CA EX verified and updated on my EX report and now it is reporting as "date reported August 10th", so while I am happy with the one delete, I can't help but wonder if the one I got deleted will pop back up any day now. I am still waiting on TU to finish their dispute process. What bothers me is the CA that EX said verified didn't properly validate the debt.

[Anonymous]

I would only DV  after SOL....You can at anytime before but be ready to PIF...PFD or take a change of being sued

[Anonymous]

My opinion, for what's it's worth, it's always best to DV when "the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed" as allowed under law.

If they are blowing smoke because they know the debt ain't legit, ain't yours, it's timebarred, you owe a debt but not as much as they claim, or they've added on charges which aren't allowed under law or under the terms of the agreement, DV can have the effect of pushing their from their high horse while they go in search of more suitable prey.

If it is legit, and they validate, then one can proceed to begin trying to settle it.

Others might feel differently, but I like knowing. One of my biggest gripes about the validation law, as it stands today, is that it's a bit of a game of intimidation seeing who's going to blink first. It should not be that way. It was intended as a means to protect consumers from unscrupulous debt collectors--whether the debt was owed or not. FDCPA is a liability statute governing the behavior of debt collectors. Congress should have provided more details about what's required of a CA when validating. If not a statute revision, then the SCOTUS needs to grant cert on a case should it come before them. Otherwise, I suspect the problem to grow worse and JDBs will start outright inventing debts en masse.