Why do basic DVs differ from the OC letters I've seen here?

[Anonymous]

---

nyccc2 wrote:
Since this returns email addresses, are you saying it is ok to just email this vs certified mail, i.e. email the president at his email address and he will then fwd to who should get it?

---

For DV, always send it CMRRR, otherwise it didn't happen and you can't prove it. But, if someone thinks they're a clever lawyer, and can show a judge that their Email return receipt or something else suffices, have at it. You might make caselaw history.

I was just providing a way of digging up more info on a company, it's employees and key people, and their contact info.

DV does NOT need to go to any specific person. You just need to be able to show you sent it and they received it.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Since this returns email addresses, are you saying it is ok to just email this vs certified mail, i.e. email the president at his email address and he will then fwd to who should get it?

---

For DV, always send it CMRRR, otherwise it didn't happen and you can't prove it. But, if someone thinks they're a clever lawyer, and can show a judge that their Email return receipt or something else suffices, have at it. You might make caselaw history.

I was just providing a way of digging up more info on a company, it's employees and key people, and their contact info.

DV does NOT need to go to any specific person. You just need to be able to show you sent it and they received it.

---

That is an interesting question in general, i.e. do email receipts count in a court of law. I always set my Outlook to Read Receipts, I only get a fraction of them back.

Maybe what I'll do is an email first (expedite) and if no reply do a CMRRR. Or both?

Still awaiting word from the credit attorney I sent my info to before I pull the trigger on my own.

[Anonymous]

When I sent the OC letter to BOTH the Verizon address  on my report in Ohio and the local office - the Ohio people sent a letter back refusing to comply and 'contact the local office' - it was the local office (thru the President's assistant) that this was resolved by.  I had dealt with her back in the 1990's when they put $50K in advertising on the wrong phone number in the yellow pages (contract specified another number) and re-orgainzed my entire business's phone lines ---they ate 1/2 the advertising and had to eat all the fees with re-orienting all my lines to accomodate their goof.  I got that re-solved by going to her - so I figured it was worth a shot on this.  Otherwise I was threatening to pay to re-orient the lines (I needed the ads) and stand on the contract - that there was no advertising authorized for that line - they would have eaten the $50K.

[Anonymous]

Cap1 has several addresses listed on their site;

Payment Investigations
Misapplied Payments
Capital One
Attn: Payment Investigations
PO Box 85642
Richmond, VA 23285-5642

Investigative Solutions
Dispute a merchant charge
Capital One
Attn: Disputes
PO Box 85520
Richmond, VA 23285-5520

Correspondence
Capital One
Attn: General Correspondence
PO Box 30285
Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0289

I think the problem with sending to multiple people is one might decide it is not worth the investigation and stop reporting and the other would decide it was worth an investigation, provide the documentation and put you back on.

[Anonymous]

nyccc2 wrote:

1) As I see it, a collection agency sends you a letter before starting collections, and in effect says, if you don't dispute this in 30 days we will assume it is valid and begin collection and reporting. Makes sense. They can't wait forever if they get no response.

2) As I see it that 30 days is just a timeframe for them to start collecting/reporting. The *spirit* of that 30-day disclaimer does not (should not) mean that you cannot dispute at any time you want to STOP the collection/reporting. You have not legally AGREED to the validity of the debt, you just have not disputed it so they are allowed to ASSUME they can begin proceedings. However, you have not given up your right to required FULL VALIDATION of the debt, whether you wait 30, 60, or 600 days.

1) Actually, the FDCPA specifically states, in 809(c), The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. IOW, just because you didn't DV doesn't mean you accept the debt as valid.

2) I think you're mixing things up here. You ALWAYS have the right to tell ANY debt collector to talk with your lawyer, or to go away and not contact you anymore. It's all there in 805. However, 809 is also very clear in that you have 30 days to DV, and if the CA doesn't validate then they have to FOAD and cease collection efforts.

As for this Full Validation thing, you won't find that ANYWHERE in the statutes. Might be caselaw for it somewhere, but I'd wanna know before relying upon it. Otherwise it's a bluff.

[Anonymous]

nyccc2 wrote:

That is an interesting question in general, i.e. do email receipts count in a court of law. I always set my Outlook to Read Receipts, I only get a fraction of them back.

Maybe what I'll do is an email first (expedite) and if no reply do a CMRRR. Or both?

---

Again, you might make interesting caselaw with an attempt to use Outlook Read Receipts, but since it's not all contained within one network, I suspect it won't fly.

Judges know about and accept CMRRR. If you want to blaze new trails, you might end up setting yourself on fire when a $5 on CMRRR might have been better spent.

[Anonymous]

The caselaw was set when CAs sued consumers (or vice versa) - a Colection attorney would probably knpw and understand this (and probably the higherups in CA management would have been informed) - does the average on-the-line collector or 1st level supervisor know this or even know FCRA & FDCPA - they don't train them that well! 

We will see what the state AGs and the FTC say about requiring the 'proof of assignment or sale' and also the 'proof of licensing and registered agent' - because the complaints are ready to be printed.  Anything this important I write, let sit, re-write, let sit etc - until I am completely satisfied.

[Anonymous]

BTW, Outlook can be set up to 'notify' the user of a read receipt request and either send or not send --- it the receiving party says no then no receipt.

FAX or CMRRR - both are accepted in a courtroom (must have the send receipt though from the fax and the log helps evern more)

[Anonymous]

1) Actually, the FDCPA specifically states, in 809(c), The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. IOW, just because you didn't DV doesn't mean you accept the debt as valid.

RIGHT, SO WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT.

2) I think you're mixing things up here. You ALWAYS have the right to tell ANY debt collector to talk with your lawyer, or to go away and not contact you anymore. It's all there in 805. However, 809 is also very clear in that you have 30 days to DV, and if the CA doesn't validate then they have to FOAD and cease collection efforts.

TO MY READING THOUGH, AND TAKING POINT 1 INTO ACCOUNT, ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT IF YOU DON'T DISPUTE IN 30 DAYS THE CA CAN PROCEED WITH COLLECTION EFFORTS AND REPORTING. SINCE THE 30 DAY WINDOW IS ONLY FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED, AND NOT AN ADMISSION OF THE DEBT BY THE CONSUMER, THE CONSUMER THEREFOR CAN 'DV' ANYTIME THEY WANT AND THE COLLECTOR IS STILL OBLIGATED TO VALIDATE TO THE SAME DEGREE THEY WOULD HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.  THIS WHOLE 'TIMELY MANNER' IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAVE CASELAW ATTACHED, I.E. 'REPLYING IN A TIMELY MANNER' REFERS ONLY TO THE ABILTY OF THE CA TO 'START THE CLOCK' ON COLLECTIONS (SO IT DOESN'T STAY IN LIMBO FOR 60/90/900 DAYS FOR THE CONSUMER TO GET AROUND TO IT) AND NOT ON THE RIGHT OF THE CONSUMER TO DEMAND DOCUMENTATION / VALIDATION OF THE DEBT TO THE SAME DEGREE THEY HAD A RIGHT TO WITH THE INITIAL COLLECTION NOTICE. 

EVEN MY CREDIT CONSULTANT SAID, WHEN I SHOWED HIM THE DV LETTER, IT WAS 'USELESS' SINCE IT WAS NOT TIMELY.  AND I SAID THE SAME TO HIM; ONLY IN THAT IT ALLOWED THEM TO START, THEY CAN'T IGNORE IT.

THE PROBLEM THOUGH IS I THINK THE CAS HAV LIBERALLY INTERPRETED THE LAW SO THAT IF THE CONSUMER DOES NOT DISPUTE IN THE 30 DAY WINDOW THEIR SUBSEQUENT 'VERIFICATONS' ARE 1/2 ASED AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTATION.

CERTAINLY ANY VERIFICATIONS I'VE GOTTE HAVE MERELY BEEN 'VERIFED', NO ONE SHOWED ME A CONTRACT OR STATEMENT AND I'D BET DOLLAR TO DOUGHNUTS THEY DIDN'T SEND ANY TO THE CRAS EITHER, THEY JUST STATED XYZ ARE THE VERIFIED FACTS.

SO I THINK IT IS TIME TO ESTABLISH IN A COURT OF LAW 'TIMELY MANNER' AND 'VERIFICATION'.  AS IT STANDS IT IS SO RIGGED AGAINST US I'D NOT BE SURPRISED IF CAS MAKE A BUNDLE CHARGING MORE THEN THE AMOUNTS OWED OR WRONGFUL DEBTS.

SORRY FOR THE CAPS, IT WAS JUST SUPPOSED TO BE A SENTENCE

As for this Full Validation thing, you won't find that ANYWHERE in the statutes. Might be caselaw for it somewhere, but I'd wanna know before relying upon it. Otherwise it's a bluff.

I CANNOT BELIEVE THERE IS NO CASELAW ON EXACTLY WHAT 'VALIDATION' AND EVEN 'VERIFICATION' MEANS. As I said earier, it seems to just mean 'yes CRA, our database says it is $1100 owed to Cap1 since 11/01'.  That isn't verfiyng a debt, it is verifying data entered by a CA, and is GIGO

Message Edited by nyccc2 on 02-15-2008 07:56 AM

[Anonymous]

---

nyccc2 wrote:

TO MY READING THOUGH, AND TAKING POINT 1 INTO ACCOUNT, ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT IF YOU DON'T DISPUTE IN 30 DAYS THE CA CAN PROCEED WITH COLLECTION EFFORTS AND REPORTING.

...

SO I THINK IT IS TIME TO ESTABLISH IN A COURT OF LAW 'TIMELY MANNER' AND 'VERIFICATION'.

...

I CANNOT BELIEVE THERE IS NO CASELAW ON EXACTLY WHAT 'VALIDATION' AND EVEN 'VERIFICATION' MEANS.

---

You might find caselaw in your district which is more consumer friendly, but a whole lotta credit freaks in several other places have been following this for a whole lot longer than I have.. Guerrero was the case a lot of us were watching, but the court didn't spell out what constitutes "adequate validation" under 809. So, at the risk of repeating myself, that matter remains undecided.

You are very much mistaken in believing that 809 prohibits a CA from collection efforts UNTIL you DV them. They can call, write, report to the CAs, and otherwise pursue collection efforts unless and until you timely validate. If you don't, well, then under the law Congress appears to have told consumers, "Tough manure."

CAs aren't required to wait out the 30 days before they start collections.

"If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period ... the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt ... Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during the 30-day period ..."

You can believe what you want, but unless and until you put forth some caselaw to back up your assertions, they just ain't so.

Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 02-18-2008 09:01 AM