Is this proper debt validation?

[Anonymous]

I sent a pay for delete letter to CACH LLC - recieved a response from Resurgent Capital Services. They ignored my pay for delete and sent the attached letter along with another letter basically saying here is proof of your debt and you have 30 days to reply.

Heres the Debt Validation link

Is this proper debt validation? How should I respond? I'm a bit worried of them re-aging the debt. I plan on sending a certified letter soon.

Also I live in Michigan. Does anyone know the SOL on this charge off? It says the original charge off date was 7/31/2014

Thank you

[simplegirl]

Michigan SOL seems to be 6 years so your still within it.

[RobertEG]

The post states that you sent a pay for deletion offer, not a request for debt validation under FDCPA 809(b).

A DV request is a specific process under FDCPA 809 which imposes certain restrictions on the debt collector (e.g., a cease collection bar), but only if the DV was timely, meaning it was sent within 30-days of dunning notice.

Thus, it does not appear that there is any issue of whether the debt collector has complied with the debt validation process under FDCPA 809(b).

I would consider their letter to be an advisory summary, providing the name of the original creditor and some limited account information.

However, if the letter also included the extra provisions required for a dunning notice, such as advisement of the right to request debt validation within 30 days of the communication, it might also be considered as their dunning notice. 

That might then trigger your 30-day period for requesting debt validation, f they did not previously send a formal dunning notice.

As of now, there does not appear to be any formal debt validation process in play under FDCPA 809......

[Anonymous]

Yes. I sent a pay for delete and received this letter instead, stating I have 30 days to respond or they will consider the debt mine.

Just curious how to proceed.

Thanks

[RobertEG]

Did their response also include advisement of your right to request debt validation within 30 days?

That is important, as that would make it a dunning notice, and thus trigger your right to send a DV request.....

[Anonymous]

Yes I actually received two letters, post marked the same date.

I had sent them an email about a week ago, saying I was unaware of the debt but willing to settle in exchange for removing the tradeline. Then I recieved these two letters

One said:
“We have received a recent inquiry regarding the above-referenced account and have enclosed the account summary which provides verification of debt”

The letter also attached the account summary I posted earlier.

The other said:
"Unless you notify us within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion of it, we will assume this debt is valid. If you notify us within 30 days we will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of judgement and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, cach llc cannot sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, cach llc may report to agencies as unpaid"

Thank you!

[RobertEG]

The second letter was their formal dunning notice, which establishes the running of the 30-day period within which you can send a timely DV request.  If you intend to request debt validation, you must do so within the 30-day period set by the dunning notice.

A timley DV will impose a cease collection bar on the debt collector, which will remain in effect until they have first sent validation.

Note that a timely DV does not require them to send validation, or establish any period for their response.

They could choose to simple cease continued collection activities (calls and letters) without sending any validation.

What is or is not adequate debt validation is not clearly defined under the validation statute (FDCPA 809), and is governed by case law interpretation of their response.  Most binding case law does not require that they send "proofs" documenting the verification, but only a statement that they have investigated and found the debt to be valid.

If you receive any "validation" that you consider inadequate under the case law in your jurisdiction, that is not per se a violation on their part.  It is simply your opinion that the response is not adequate validation, which means that any cease collection bar remains in effect.  Assertion of violation would then occur only if they resume active collection on the debt without having first provided validation.