debt validation

[glc4122]

yes, i have question about debt validation.you have 30 day's from receipt of letter. what is the proper time to send letter earlier or closer to the 30 day's. Im trying to gain some time before filing bk. worried about a law suit, and no calls to my employer

[ssdsco]

yes, i have question about debt validation.you have 30 day's from receipt of letter. what is the proper time to send letter earlier or closer to the 30 day's. Im trying to gain some time before filing bk. worried about a law suit, and no calls to my employer

I make sure the certified mail receipt is dated about 7 days prior to the 30 day mark. I've sent about 8-9 DVs in the last 90 days and only one creditor responded. Haven't heard a thing from the rest.

You could also include a request not to call your employer or your home for that matter.

[jp2861]

Firing off a debt validation won't solve either of your concerns.

They can still file suit without validating the debt. All a debt validation letter will do is put them on hold from trying collect, not stop them from initiating a lawsuit against you.

If you don't want them calling your workplace send them a Cease and Desist letter telling them to only contact you in writing.

[epiphany]

Firing off a debt validation won't solve either of your concerns.

They can still file suit without validating the debt. All a debt validation letter will do is put them on hold from trying collect, not stop them from initiating a lawsuit against you.

If you don't want them calling your workplace send them a Cease and Desist letter telling them to only contact you in writing.

So, why do CAs send you a letter telling you that unless you dispute within 30 days, they will assume the debt to be valid? Are you saying that they can assume the debt to be valid anyway? Or are you just talking about original creditors? Thanks.

EP

[HHM]

they will assume the debt to be valid?

Actually, saying that is a violation of the FDCPA.

[treehugger1]

While it is certainly true that a CA can move toward suit without validation under the FDCPA, they would still be required under discovery to present their "evidence of your debt." Since filing a suit would be a "continued collection activity without answering the request for validation," I believe they would be in violation of the FDCPA. But, maybe some don't care or are willing to play the odds that they won't be called into question.

From my own personal experience, every DV I've requested has resulted in either a non-response (have not heard back from these CAs for over 4 months,) or a copy of information they felt satisfied DV. Of those that tried to send me validation, it turned out the CAs were not registered in my state, and the state attorney general's office of consumer finance shut them down. I'm assuming that sometime in the future, these debts will surfacce and I'll have to deal with them, but the DV request certainly quieted down all CA's who were attempting to collect a debt from me. I'm not sure one can always buy time, but in my experience i have not heard from folks I DV'd 4 - 5 months ago.

While I have not filed (and hopefully can avoid filing,) my request for DV and cease and desist certainly has bought me months of time.

Maybe I just had weak CA's attempting to collect?

[treehugger1]

Oops, back to the original post. I sent all my requests for DV 18 - 20 days after I received the dunning letters. I sent all of them return-receipt US mail.

[epiphany]

Actually, saying that is a violation of the FDCPA.

Really? Both of the dunning letters I have received (one from CA, one from Law Firm, same creditor) say:

"Unless you dispute this debt, or any portion of it, within 30 days after you receive this notice, we will assume that it is valid. If you notify us within the 30 day period following receipt of this notice that you dispute this debt, or any portion of it, we will stop all collection activity until we obtain verification of the debt or a copy of any judgment and mail it to you"

So, just them saying they will assume it to be valid is a violation?

Thanks,
EP

[HHM]

There are some cases that hold that that language in the dunning letters ("we will assume the debt to be valid") is misleading and deceptive and therefore a violation of the FDCPA. Reason being, several courts have held that failure to dispute a debt via the validation procedures is NOT an admission of liability.

However, whether the courts in your district would construe the language as a violation is another matter. In any event, unless you are willing to sue the CA for the violation, this is just idle conversation.

[epiphany]

There are some cases that hold that that language in the dunning letters ("we will assume the debt to be valid") is misleading and deceptive and therefore a violation of the FDCPA. Reason being, several courts have held that failure to dispute a debt via the validation procedures is NOT an admission of liability.

However, whether the courts in your district would construe the language as a violation is another matter. In any event, unless you are willing to sue the CA for the violation, this is just idle conversation.

Oh, I wouldn't call it idle converstaion by any means. Knowledge is empowering and I just may be "willing" somewhere down the line. It is definitely something I will be looking further into.

Thanks for the info.
EP

[treehugger1]

Interestingly enough, some of the dunning letters I've received in my state do say someting to the effect that "failure to respond is not an admission of liability."

[jp2861]

The key word here is "assume". If someone doesn't respond with a DV the collector would have no other option but to assume the debt is valid. Look at it this way: If someone does NOT respond, would the collector assume that the debt is NOT valid? Nope. They will assume that the debt is valid because if they assumed the debt was NOT valid and continued to collect, it wouldn't make any sense. If they admitted that they assumed the debt was NOT valid continued attempts to collect WOULD be a violation. So, it's really just a play on words to cover their backsides. What they're saying is they have a debt that they believe to be yours and they will continue collection attempts until proven otherwise.