How do I get a CA to validate instead of sending me dispute responses?

[RobertEG]

No as to requiring info directly from the consumer during a CRA dispute.  Their dealings must be with the CRA.

When one disputes through a CRA, the entire resolution of the dispute is charged to the CRA under their reinvestigation requirement.

The FCRA requires the furnisher to respond back to the CRA within the reinvestigation period.  FCRA 623(b), Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute.

The CRA then makes the determination, not the furnisher.

Any communication with the consumer, while not per se improper, is outside of their required response to the CRA, and is thus simply informal.

If they hold that the information is insufficient to conduct an investigation, they must advise the CRA of that determination.  They hope the CRA will agree, and dismiss the dispute.  However, they run the risk that the CRA will not dismiss, but rather will hold their lack of verification as basis for their determination that the dispute stands unverified.

[awdsmama]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

No as to requiring info from the consumer during a CRA dispute.

When one disputes through a CRA, the entire resolution of the dispute is charged to the CRA under their reinvestigation requirement.

The FCRA requires the furnisher to respond back to the CRA within the reinvestigation period.  FCRA 623(b), Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute.

The CRA then makes the determination, not the furnisher.

Any communication with the consumer, while not per se improper, is outside of their required response to the CRA, and is thus simply informal.

If they hold that the information is insufficient to conduct an investigation, they must advise the CRA of that determination.  They hope the CRA will agree, and dismiss the dispute.  However, they run the risk that the CRA will not dismiss, but rather will hold their lack of verification as basis for their determination that the dispute stands unverified.

---

Thank you!   Your replies are always full of information, much appreciated.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Yeah, this seems to be the tactic d'jour being used by debt collectors, interpreting a DV as a direct dispute.

The direct dispute rules do provide them the ability to dismiss a direct dispute as lacking sufficient supporting documentation.

However, you may be able to use their interpretation against them.

The direct dispute process does NOT permit them to require more information, and keep the "dispute" open until they receive the requested information.

The rules permit them to DISMISS a direct dispute during the 30 day investigation process if their review determines that it lacks sufficient documentation to enable a reasonable investigation.  They must conclude the dispute, either by investigating or dismissing, within the period.  If they dismiss, they must identify what is considered lacking, which is quite different from suspending the dispute under a requirement that the consumer provide it.

Their tactic does not do that.  It attempts to suspend the "dispute" pending their receipt of information.

You could assert that, once the 30-day investigation period has expired, they are in non-compliance with their statutory requirement to conclude the dispute.

I would write them, stating that your letter was not a direct dispute, but rather a DV, and thus they remain under a cease collection bar as not having provided the requested validation.  Then use the above to point out to them that, if it were a direct dispute, they must conclude it within the statutory period, and you have no requirement to provide any additional information.

---

RobertEG,

Should I wait until the 30-day investigation period has expired before mailing the letter which indicates that my initial letters were not a direct dispute but rather a DV, etc. or should I send it before the 30-day investigation period has expired?

[RobertEG]

Send it now.

The argument about the investigation period is simply an advisement that, even if they did consider it a dispute, that did not permit them to require more information.

The primary argument is that it was NOT a dispute.  I would get that assertion before them ASAP.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Send it now.

The argument about the investigation period is simply an advisement that, even if they did consider it a dispute, that did not permit them to require more information.

The primary argument is that it was NOT a dispute.  I would get that assertion before them ASAP.

---

RobertEG,

You are ALWAYS the best!  Thank you SOOOO MUCH and Happy Holidays to you and yours!

[RobertEG]

This is to advise that the communication received ( ) was apparently improperly considered on your part as a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8).

It was clearly identified as a request for debt validation under FDCPA 809(b).

Absent validation on your part, you are thus prevented under the cease collection bar imposed under FDCPA 809(b) from any collection on the debt until the requested debt validation has been provided, including any reporting to a consumer reporting agency of your collection activities.

In the event that you persist in your misinterpretation of my request as a direct dispute, be advised that the direct dispute rules at 16 CFR 660.4 require that you conclude any such direct dispute within 30 days, and if dismissed, provide identification of the documentation you assert as lacking.  The direct dispute rules do not permit you to avoid conclusion of a dispute by requiring additional information.

Thus, in addition to being barred reporting to a CRA, any reporting of a dispute would be required to be followed by reporting its dismissal after 30 days from the date of my prior communication.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

This is to advise that the communication received ( ) was apparently improperly considered on your part as a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8).

It was clearly identified as a request for debt validation under FDCPA 809(b).

Absent validation on your part, you are thus prevented under the cease collection bar imposed under FDCPA 809(b) from any collection on the debt until the requested debt validation has been provided, including any reporting to a consumer reporting agency of your collection activities.

In the event that you persist in your misinterpretation of my request as a direct dispute, be advised that the direct dispute rules at 16 CFR 660.4 require that you conclude any such direct dispute within 30 days, and if dismissed, provide identification of the documentation you assert as lacking.  The direct dispute rules do not permit you to avoid conclusion of a dispute by requiring additional information.

Thus, in addition to being barred reporting to a CRA, any reporting of a dispute would be required to be followed by reporting its dismissal after 30 days from the date of my prior communication.

---

RobertEG,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!  I was literally just in the process of composing my letter, and the verbiage you gave me is just what I needed.  The heavens just opened up and an angel named "RobertEG" appeared.  lol!

Thank you, again!

[Anonymous]

---

@awdsmama wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@RobertEG,

Actually, I did include that EXACT statement in my DV letters.

Thank you! 

---

Out of curiosity:

When did you send your DV letters?

When did you dispute with the CRA?

Are they referencing your letters or the CRA dispute in their letters? 

I'm fairly new at all this, just curious!!

---

@awdsmama,

I am fairly new to this as well.  I just started my research and started this process this past summer, so I'm really not the person to ask for advice.  However, to answer your questions:

1. When did you send your DV letters?  -- I sent my first DV letter to this particular CA in September.  
2. When did you dispute with the CRA? -- I disputed with the CRA in September as well.  
3. Are they referencing your letters or the CRA dispute in their letters? -- No, they are not at all referencing the CRA dispute in their responses.

Hope this info helps.