Debt validation letter.

[Anonymous]

A lawyer that was representing a debt collector sent me a letter stating I had 30 days to contact them or I would be accepting a debt by default. I sent them a debt validation letter through certified mail that arrived 1 week before my 30 days with them was up stating they needed to prove I own the debt. It has almost been 30 days with no response what happens next?

Less

[Anonymous]

Wanted to add the debt collector bought the debt from the original creditor.

[RobertEG]

The purpose and intent of congress in establishing the debt validation process under FDCPA 809 was not the creation of a mandatory procedure for requiring a debt collector to provide validation of an asserted debt.

Rather, the stated intent was to provide consumers with a temporary period within which they could pbtain a respite from active communications from the debt collector until the debt collector has cchosen to send the consumer verification of the debt.

To that end, FDCPA 809 sets a limited period of 30 days after the consumer has been sent a collection ("dunning") notice for sending a request or debt validation.  After receipt of a timely DV request, the debt collector is required to cease continued collection activities, including calls and letters, until they have first sent the requested verification.  

It is a common misconception of the DV process that it sets a requirement to send verification, and/or that they must do so within 30 days.

There is no time period for required response, and the debt collector can choose to simply wait indefinately to send any verification.

However, they cannot continue to call or communicate until they have first sent verification.

[Anonymous]

Can the lawyer percede with suing me in court without responding to the debt validation letter?

[RobertEG]

That issue has been raised several times in civil litigation, with the consumer/defendant asserting that filling civil action is a violation of the cease collection bar while after a timely DV request of the consumer.

The courts have treated it a bit differently, but normally have treated it as more of a procedural than a substantive matter, and usually dont dismiss a pending suit based on lack of prior validation to a pending DV request.  One typical treatment is for the judge to simply set a short, compulsory period requiring the debt collector/plaintiff to file a verification statement before the suit proceeds.

I know of no case law that has dismised a pending civil complaint based on lack of prior veification of a dv request.  The most likely reason is that the civil action itself compels the production of verification as part of its evidentary finding, thus rendering the less-rigorous DV verification issue moot.

If it becomes an actual issue, I would recommend consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction for specific advise on prior case law precedent that might apply to your specific proceeding.