Question regarding validation

[Anonymous]

I was just curious, so I can understand all the wording and can come up with come-backs if necessary:

First and foremost the best route to take is send a DV letter, then a PFD letter. In the DV letter, we ask for validation of the CA owning the debt, right?

In Tuscanis (awesome) PFD letter sample, I have a question on the first paragraph phrasing:

This letter is to inform you that the validity of this debt is disputed. I am not sure of the account number, as I have never heard from you regarding this account. The account number I have is the one listed on my Experian credit report – which omits the last few digits. 

But didn't we already establish the validity of the debt, when we sent and received validation of the debt? I know we can tweak the wording as far as "never heard from you regarding this account", but how does the CA take it when we send letters of DV, then replying with a PFD stating again we dispute it?

Am I reading too much into it and the main purpose of the DV letter is to make sure the CA owns the debt, then we PFD and state although the CA does own it legit., we ourselves dispute the amount and circumstances that led to having a CA own this particular debt?

Just trying to clear some thoughts up. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

In this particular letter it is stating that even though I do not believe I own this debt I will pay if you delete it. 

Not every one sends a DV, they go right to the PFD, though in my opinion they should. 

The main purpose of the DV is make sure the CA can legally collect, it does not matter whether they own it or it is assigned to them.

Message Edited by guiness56 on 03-10-2010 07:43 PM

[Anonymous]

Ok. Thank you. I was just trying to piece together the reasons and how it looks to the CA. I'm a visual kind of person, need to "see" how things work to understand them.

[Anonymous]

I am sending you a pm.

[RobertEG]

The main purpose of a DV letter under FDCPA 809(b) is to require the CA to cease active collection activity until such time as they may choose to provide validation.  A CA does not have to own the debt to act for the OC as their agent in collection of the debt.  FDCPA 809(b) does not require a CA to provide written documentary evidence that have authority to act as a third party in collection of the debt.  They have already made this assertion in their dunning notice under FDCPA 809(a).  If it goes to court, you can require written documentation through the discovery process, but there is no provision of the FDCPA upon which you can require legal proof beyond their assertion of collection authority.

In order to send a DV letter to the CA, you must include a statement that you dispute the debt, in whole or in part.  FDCPA 809(b).  If the debt is legit, and you dont dispute it, then you shouldnt DV.  EVen if you do DV, you are almost assured of validation.  And they have no time period for response, so you may not even get a reply.

[Anonymous]

In order to send a DV letter to the CA, you must include a statement that you dispute the debt, in whole or in part.  FDCPA 809(b).  If the debt is legit, and you dont dispute it, then you shouldnt DV.  EVen if you do DV, you are almost assured of validation.  And they have no time period for response, so you may not even get a reply.

Not entirely a true statement.  It does go on to say....or if the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor.

[RobertEG]

Guiness, I agree.  If all you want is the name and address of the original creditor, you can DV them under the "or" provision of FDCPA 809(b without disputing the debt.  But how many DV letters are sent for the sole purpose of just verifying the name and address of the OC?

But you are legally correct.