Debt Validation Timely vs. Untimely

[Jen23514]

some things are always relevant.

[EarnIt]

some things are always relevant.

 

I agree. I have this thread book marked myself.

[Jen23514]

some things are always relevant.

 

I agree. I have this thread book marked myself.

 

I like going through my bookmarks... Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.

[EarnIt]

some things are always relevant.

 

I agree. I have this thread book marked myself.

 

I like going through my bookmarks... Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.

 

Again!!!!

[Wilbur]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

[EarnIt]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

[Wilbur]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

 

So do they still have to provide proof in order to keep reporting. If they can't validate no matter what the time frame, can they continue forward? Or can I still continue with the second DV, and start racking up the violations?

Edited April 10, 2009 by Wilbur

[EarnIt]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

 

So do they still have to provide proof in order to keep reporting. If they can't validate no matter what the time frame, can they continue forward? Or can I still continue with the second DV, and start racking up the violations?

 

Reporting after a DV but before the validate is a violation. Verifying within the 30 days if you DV is a violation. If you are outside of the 30 day window, they can report and verify.

 

A CA never "has" to provide validation. They do have to cease collection activity if you DV them within the first 30 days until the validate though.

[Wilbur]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

 

So do they still have to provide proof in order to keep reporting. If they can't validate no matter what the time frame, can they continue forward? Or can I still continue with the second DV, and start racking up the violations?

 

Reporting after a DV but before the validate is a violation. Verifying within the 30 days if you DV is a violation. If you are outside of the 30 day window, they can report and verify.

 

A CA never "has" to provide validation. They do have to cease collection activity if you DV them within the first 30 days until the validate though.

 

 

 

 

So essentially once outside the 30day window nothing can be done with the exception of PFD's goodwill's, etc...?

[Lynn37]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

 

So do they still have to provide proof in order to keep reporting. If they can't validate no matter what the time frame, can they continue forward? Or can I still continue with the second DV, and start racking up the violations?

 

Reporting after a DV but before the validate is a violation. Verifying within the 30 days if you DV is a violation. If you are outside of the 30 day window, they can report and verify.

 

A CA never "has" to provide validation. They do have to cease collection activity if you DV them within the first 30 days until the validate though.

 

No in most cases you can do a 623, Break that trade line down; line by line.

 

 

 

 

So essentially once outside the 30day window nothing can be done with the exception of PFD's goodwill's, etc...?

[EarnIt]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

 

So do they still have to provide proof in order to keep reporting. If they can't validate no matter what the time frame, can they continue forward? Or can I still continue with the second DV, and start racking up the violations?

 

Reporting after a DV but before the validate is a violation. Verifying within the 30 days if you DV is a violation. If you are outside of the 30 day window, they can report and verify.

 

A CA never "has" to provide validation. They do have to cease collection activity if you DV them within the first 30 days until the validate though.

 

 

So essentially once outside the 30day window nothing can be done with the exception of PFD's goodwill's, etc...?

 

There are other avenues for recourse. You can always dispute with the CRA's or dircectly with the CA as a data furnisher.

[pryan67]

So in further reading I'm having a hard time understanding something. So I know that I had a collection agency after me for certain items on my credit report. So past the original 30 days(let's say 2005) I have no right to send a dv letter anymore!? Is that what this whole discussion is supposed to entail? I just sent a DV letter to each of the three CA's on my CR. If I hear nothing back, then they've done nothing wrong? I've been reading a ton, day after day, but this is still basic and I'm not understanding.

 

If you DV outside of the 30 day window, you can still DV. However, the CA does not have to stop collection activity. If the CA never dunned you, the 30 day clock never started.

 

So do they still have to provide proof in order to keep reporting. If they can't validate no matter what the time frame, can they continue forward? Or can I still continue with the second DV, and start racking up the violations?

 

Reporting after a DV but before the validate is a violation. Verifying within the 30 days if you DV is a violation. If you are outside of the 30 day window, they can report and verify.

 

A CA never "has" to provide validation. They do have to cease collection activity if you DV them within the first 30 days until the validate though.

 

 

 

 

So essentially once outside the 30day window nothing can be done with the exception of PFD's goodwill's, etc...?

 

 

not in the least...

 

 

the CAs still have to abide by the rest of FDCPA

 

 

such as:

 

 

reporting it as "in dispute"

 

not reporting information that they have reason to believe has errors

 

notifying everyone that the communicate with that the debt is in dispute (including any other CA...even, IMO, yourself)

 

etc

[LadyRelm2]

So I pulled up this thread in regards to my issue with scumbag CA. For those who are unaware of my situation:

 

I missed getting my mail for about a month. A CA had sent a dun letter. As soon as I became aware of the dun letter, I fired off a DV. It was within 30 days of me SEEING the letter...but NOT within 30 days of the dun arriving in my mailbox (or so I think. I can't actually VERIFY this as fact though...). The CA acknowledged receiving my dispute, but disregarded it. CA has continued demanding payment via mail, but has NOT reported on my CR yet. [On a side note, the bill is not valid and I do not owe.]

 

THEREFORE....since my DV could be argued to be outside of the initial 30 days, the CA does not have to stop collection activity or validate the debt. At this point, my only course of action is to wait for them to hit my reports. Would that be everyone else's perception as well???

 

Their last letter to me said something along the lines of "pay us or else..." Anything in particular you think I should send back in response? Or should I just ignore it and wait for them to hit my reports?

[pryan67]

what exactly did the letter aknowledging your dispute say?

 

 

depending on the answer to that, I would probably send a second DV, ignoring that you were outside of the 30 days...and let them know that you're still waiting for a response to your timely DV letter...

[LadyRelm2]

what exactly did the letter aknowledging your dispute say?

 

 

depending on the answer to that, I would probably send a second DV, ignoring that you were outside of the 30 days...and let them know that you're still waiting for a response to your timely DV letter...

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...p;hl=applicable

 

pryan,

 

See link for exact wording of what they said. Also, after I received that response, I sent off the letter you suggested. They never replied to my 2nd letter at all or my request for DV.

 

So I can either send them off a 3rd letter stating they have failed to respond to my dispute, continued collection, blah blah blah.... Or I can not respond at all and see if they hit my reports. I think it would be in my best interest to respond. That way if/when it goes to court, I can show a judge that I did not ignore their letters but sent a response every time. Would you agree?

[pryan67]

I'd go with a third letter...and copy their registered agent, as well as their compliance officer...and the OC....letting the OC know that you'll be naming THEM in any suit that's necessitated by the actions of their agent, the CA

[Jen23514]

ttt

[IheartLoopHoles]

Do they have to dun you when they put it on your report? Nothing I know of says they do.

 

NOT SO IN CALIFORNIA!

 

California Civil Code 1785.26, states that “a creditor may submit negative credit information concerning a

consumer to a consumer credit reporting agency, only if the creditor notifies the consumer affected. The notice shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the party's last known address, prior to or within 30 days after the transmission of the negative credit informationâ€.

 

This code for Californians is PRICELESS. USE IT! It's not to say that they couldn't just as easily backdate another letter claiming they sent it, but good to know either way.

[pryan67]

Do they have to dun you when they put it on your report? Nothing I know of says they do.

 

NOT SO IN CALIFORNIA!

 

California Civil Code 1785.26, states that “a creditor may submit negative credit information concerning a

consumer to a consumer credit reporting agency, only if the creditor notifies the consumer affected. The notice shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the party's last known address, prior to or within 30 days after the transmission of the negative credit informationâ€.

 

This code for Californians is PRICELESS. USE IT! It's not to say that they couldn't just as easily backdate another letter claiming they sent it, but good to know either way.

 

 

that "prior to" could bite you in the butt though...

 

let's say you have a Chase card...and you default....several months ago, they included in a mailing the information that they MAY report negative information to the CRAs if you default....Chase is covered

 

 

Chase then sells the title to the debt...including all rights, etc...to a CA....the CA will claim that you WERE notified...and the courts COULD say "yep...you were notified"....

 

I disagree with that take on it...but it could happen

[IheartLoopHoles]

"prior to or within 30 days after the transmission of the negative credit information"

 

I read that as prior to 30 days of reporting or within 30 days of reporting. So that basically gives them 60 days to comply....30 days prior and 30 days after......

[Jen23514]

ttt