HELP with DV Letter - Send documentation?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

You have nothing to risk by talking to them over the phone because you have nothing that will prove you to be liable for anything.  I agree with this thinking, i apologize for not mentioning that in the first reponse.  I think this is the correct thing to do at first but atleast you know your outs now if they prove to be stubborn.

Guiness what on earth are you talking about.  My point is that's all they can possibly get from  a DV they can't dispute the original terms of the contract with a CA. they have to go another route.  The OP was wondering if sending the CA a DV was the way to handle the situation and i was just explaining that that isn't necessary the right remedy for the current problem.

---

What I am talking about is you giving them incorrect or not full information.    You stated all they had to give you was the OC name and amount.  I said that was not correct unless you disputed it or specifically asked for it.  A DV only makes them tell you who is currently collecting. 

---

The info i gave is not incorrect.  Once you request this you still are not able to dispute the terms of the original contract.  I stand by what i said.  Whether you have to request the info is irrelavent all they have to give you is the information i mentioned before.

If you have to request it so what it's not gonna have any bearing on the how the fees occured on the original account balance in the first place.  All they are restricted  to  by law is to prove that the balance exist with the original creditor and they have the right to collect on it.  It doesn't matter if the balance is accrued illegally.  This is not to be taken up with the CA.

[Anonymous]

I would suggest you re-read the FDCPA on debt validation.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest you re-read the FDCPA on debt validation.

---

Yup read it ok ... what's new.  You have to request the information ... we already been through this. You established that and that has nothing to do with my point. The fdcpa is very vague on what verification is.  They merely have to show that the account balance exist on the oc's books what part of fdcpa 809 says they must go beyond that?

Or plz show any formal proof thru court ruling anywhere where a judge has demanded that a CA has to go beyond this.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest you re-read the FDCPA on debt validation.

---

Yup read it ok ... what's new.  You have to request the information ... we already been through this. You established that and that has nothing to do with my point. The fdcpa is very vague on what verification is.  They merely have to show that the account balance exist on the oc's books what part of fdcpa 809 says they must go beyond that?

Or plz show any formal proof thru court ruling anywhere where a judge has demanded that a CA has to go beyond this.

---

According to the FDCPA no, they do not.  They only have to tell you who is currently collecting the debt and how much it is.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

According to the FDCPA no, they do not.  They only have to tell you who is currently collecting the debt and how much it is.

---

 809 (a) (5) clearly states the CA must respond with a statement that upon the consumer's written request within the thirty day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and the address of the ORIGINAL CREDITOR if different from the current creditor.

Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc.

Here’s a case, Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., where a consumer disputed a medical bill. The collection attorney, hired by the doctor, collected eight pages of itemized charges that included the nature of the charges and balance of the bill. The 9th Circuit of Appeals agreed and stated: “verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.”

collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.”

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo is the finding that is most often used by debt collectors. In that case, which was a special situation where pages and pages of detailed validation from the original creditor were already sent to the consumer as validation, the court ruled:

“Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.”

I do stand corrected i have found an example where judge that has ruled that a CA thouroughly explain where all the fees accrued since the account's inception.  However most of the cases ruled had this outcome.  The odds are against that argument period.

[Anonymous]

Exactly, IF REQUESTED.  Just sending a DV does not require them to send that information.  That is all I am trying to get across.