Questions about a lot of these DV sample letters I've been seeing.

[JohnnBoy]

There seems to be a lot of mumbo jumbo in some DV letters. I don't understand where all these demands regarding most of the stuff in these drawn out letters are coming from.

From what's I've read in THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, the only thing you can really ask for is the name and address of the OC. 

"(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) 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 address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

So, where is all this other stuff coming from?

Also, I saw this following statement in a DV letter and was wondering if there is any ground to the claim.

"If your offices have reported invalidated information to any of the three major Credit Bureau's (Equifax, Experian or TransUnion), said action might constitute fraud under both Federal and State Laws."


-JB

[RobertEG]

The root issue is that FDCPA 809(b) does not define what adequate validation of the debt must comprise.

It states only that the debt collector must obtain verification of the debt, and if also requested, must provide the name of the original creditor.

So all the statute requires is that the debt collector investigate the debt, obtain verification, and pass that on to the consumer.  It does not require the debt collector to provide supporting documentation, or "prove" the validiity of the debt.

When statutory language is broad or vague, it is left to the courts to make their interpretation.  Some isolated federal jurisdictions have held, primaritly at the trial court level, that the statute requires certain amounts of documentation, but most of those decisions are not at the appellate level, and thus not binding even within the federal juriisdiction of that court.  One could  presumably research case law in their federal jurisdiction, and attempt to obtain appelate court decisions affirming that debt verification requires some of those items included in some DV requests.  Even having done that, one would then be required to bring legal action in their jurisdiction, and rely on that case law as precedent.  It would then be left to the judge to determine the intepretation binding in their jurisdiction.  Ultimately, only a judge can rule on the facts of a given case, and determine whether adequate verification has been provided.  A long an costly road to challenge adequacy of verification.

The vast majority of federal jurisdictions accept the interpretation of the statute that the debt collector is not required to provide supporting documentation.

Thus, the general wisdom on the site is to leave all of those requirements out of a DV, and keep it simply to a general request for validation.

Unless willing to challenge a response it court, one cannot enforce requirements not stated in the statute.

[JohnnBoy]

Thanks for clearing that up! There's a lot of misguided information out there for people new to repairing their credit.