Help With Debt Validation Process

[odjohnson3]

Hey Gang. Im currently trying to help someone out with removing some collection accounts from their credit report. Ive read over a few debt validation posts and Im trying to apply that method. For the collection accounts in question, there was never a dunning letter sent for one of the accounts. For the other, its too old to recall wether or not there was one sent. I have sent debt validation letter to both collection agencies. After 2 weeks of waiting, Ive sent dipsutes to the CRAs for the collection accounts as well.

Im still playing the wait game for the CRA to finish their dispute process. Its been a month since I sent the debt validation letter to both collection agencies and ive received nothing. From my understanding, they dont have a time frame to respond but can they continue collection activity (credit reporting) without responding to the debt validation. Ive read a that the debt validation process has to be within 30 days of receiving the dunning letter, but for one of these accounts, the dunning letter was never recieved. The collection account just appeared on the credit report so I guess this would be kinda like initial communication. For the other collection account, 5 years old, id think at some time they may have sent one....its 5 years old and the collection agency doesnt send bills for it, so, who knows.

Just tryna get some help on how to proceed if these accounts are "verified" by the CRA (typical)....but no information is ever provided by the collection agency for the debt validation request. Can the collection agency continue to report without providing debt validation? How would/ do I proceed? If im lucky, the collector will volunteeringly remove the account, which was the case with one that I tackled last month...Im jus looking for direction since its almost that time....id like to have a game plan on how to proceed.

Thanks for any help....its much appreciated.

[RobertEG]

By "continuing to report," do you mean reply back to the CRA with respect to verification of the accuracy of the disputed information, correction of prior reporting, regular monthly reporting, or some other reporting?

Yes, if they never provided dunning notice, your DV would have been timely, and thus invoke a cease collection bar.

However, whether an action is a prohibited collection activity based on a cease collection bar is dependent upon what the action is, and how the case law has interpreted that type of action.

[odjohnson3]

By "continuing to report," do you mean reply back to the CRA with respect to verification of the accuracy of the disputed information, correction of prior reporting, regular monthly reporting, or some other reporting?

Im not really sure how to answer that.....

Its never been disputed up until now....so if the CRA verifies and the collection agency doesnt send me a debt validation then I guess there would be 2 answers, think?

1) regular monthly reporting.....which from my interpretation of your response should be prohibited....or maybe im misinterpreting

2) The alleged verification of the accuracy of the disputed information.....I say this because its allegedly verified by the CRA, however I cant seem to get a response for the debt validation letter I sent before even disputing....Kinda like, for lack of better words..."I asked first and you couldnt give me anything but you want me to believe you verified this same account with the CRA."

Sorry if im misinterpreting....im not all that savy with legal word play lol.....If im still missing it, would you mind simplifying your response please....Im very grateful for the reply....Just tryna make sure I understand it correctly and also, are there any steps I can take moving forward?

[odjohnson3]

"whether an action is a prohibited collection activity based on a cease collection bar is dependent upon what the action is"

Please ellaborate..Im all confused

[Anonymous]

Sending a DV letter does not require the CA to send you validation nor does it stop them from reporting the collection to the CRA what it does is stops them from actively trying to collect the debt

[odjohnson3]

But reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity , so how is that?

[Anonymous]

---

@odjohnson3 wrote:
But reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity , so how is that?

---

Have they updated their reports subsequent to the DV request? Most CA's do not report every single month.

[Anonymous]

---

@odjohnson3 wrote:
But reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity , so how is that?

---

I believe that is a gray area and may not be supported by case law, hopefully RobertEG will respond to this as he is far more versed on this than most.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@odjohnson3 wrote:
But reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity , so how is that?

---

I believe that is a gray area and may not be supported by case law, hopefully RobertEG will respond to this as he is far more versed on this than most.

---

Initial reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity. Updating a prior report is also considered collection activity. Responding to a dispute is not collection activity (or is a gray area), as they are required by law to re-investigate disputes.

[RobertEG]

The FDCPA mandates that a debt collector must "cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof" if they receive a timely DV until they have first provided the requested debt verification.

Any action they take could theoretically be considered as involving "collection of the debt."

However, some actions are mandated by statute, such as

(1) investigation of a dispute under the FCRA adn response back to the CRA;

(2) notifying a CRA when a consumer has filed a dispute, including any direct dispute (FDCPA 807(8))

(3) prompt update of any previously reported information if it has changed and is no longer accurate (FCRA 623(a)(2)). 

(4) if the consumer contests only a portion of the debt, then the cease collection bar does not extend to the uncontested portion (FDCPA 809(b))

Thus, there are actions that become their own violations if not conducted, and thus are not considered a violation.  If interpretation is involved, then it is ultimately up to a judge to make a determination as to whehter or not a given action is a violation of the cease collection bar.