CA received my DV letter today. Next step...

[motoguy]

Per the USPS site, a few of my Certified letters were received today. These were DV letters, and were very short. Here is the actual verbage of the body of the letter:

 

"I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation of this account pursuant to the conditions set forth in the FDCPA.

 

Additionally, consider this a formal request for all future correspondence from your company to be in writing, as telephone communication is inconvenient for me at all times"

 

I went the "short letter" route. I entirely expect a "we need to validate your identity" letter to come back, at which point I'll send them a "you don't need anything from me. If you can't confirm identity, you need to pull the negative TL. If you can confirm identity, then this letter is frivolous" type of thing.

 

I understand the 1-2 punch only works if the letters are "timely". These letters are going to CA's who have purchased charge-offs from large credit card companies (Chase, Bank of America, Capital One, etc). As such, I do not expect that firing off letters to the CRA will help much. All of these TL's are months (some possibly a year or so) old.

 

Still...I have proof that the letters were delivered / received. At this point, are there any other productive moves I can make, or do I just need to wait for a response?

 

FWIW, I received a call from a toll-free 877 a few minutes ago. First time I've had a call from one of those numbers in months. No voice mail left.

Edited January 6, 2010 by motoguy

[Bobbydebt]

1-2 punch wont work if the DV is not timely.

 

You must allow the CA some time to update their system, after the letters are signed for.

 

Did you mail this CMRRR, or just CM?

[motoguy]

1-2 punch wont work if the DV is not timely.

 

That was my understanding, but just wanted to confirm.

 

You must allow the CA some time to update their system, after the letters are signed for.

 

Did you mail this CMRRR, or just CM?

 

Sent CMRRR. I've already received the green card back from Midland Credit Management.

[centex]

You probably ought to start working on your second letter. What was sent is going to leave you severely disappointed...it is obvious you have never read the FDCPA or you would know just how little is required to be provided to you in a response to a dispute.

[motoguy]

You probably ought to start working on your second letter. What was sent is going to leave you severely disappointed...it is obvious you have never read the FDCPA or you would know just how little is required to be provided to you in a response to a dispute.

 

Actually, I used the "short" letter based on one of the discussions here, and it is purposefully open and vague. I fully expect my response to be "We need to confirm your identity", blah blah blah. I was previously under a time constraint to get my credit report cleaned up. That time restraint has been removed at this time (or, more accurately, pushed out 2 years).

 

FWIW, it looks like my letters to the CRA have yielded their first success: I'm looking at my CCT report pulled today, and the archived copy from 12-30-09. "Account Resolution Corporation" is listed under the TU column in the '09 report, however it's missing from the TU column today. TU received their letter Jan 6, and Acct Res Corp was one of the disputed accounts. I can't find the other 2 accounts, but then again, I can't find them on the archived copy, either.

 

It appears my credit report from freeannualcreditreport.com is more in depth, and more complete than what CCT provides.

Edited January 8, 2010 by motoguy

[centex]

You probably ought to start working on your second letter. What was sent is going to leave you severely disappointed...it is obvious you have never read the FDCPA or you would know just how little is required to be provided to you in a response to a dispute.

 

Actually, I used the "short" letter based on one of the discussions here, and it is purposefully open and vague. I fully expect my response to be "We need to confirm your identity", blah blah blah. I was previously under a time constraint to get my credit report cleaned up. That time restraint has been removed at this time (or, more accurately, pushed out 2 years).

 

FWIW, it looks like my letters to the CRA have yielded their first success: I'm looking at my CCT report pulled today, and the archived copy from 12-30-09. "Account Resolution Corporation" is listed under the TU column in the '09 report, however it's missing from the TU column today. TU received their letter Jan 6, and Acct Res Corp was one of the disputed accounts. I can't find the other 2 accounts, but then again, I can't find them on the archived copy, either.

 

It appears my credit report from freeannualcreditreport.com is more in depth, and more complete than what CCT provides.

 

Under federal law, what you requested only obligates them to get you a few pieces of information. My response had NOTHING to do with your expectation of what you might receive in terms of asking for identifying infomation but rather that they really don't have to provide what you probably think they do...

 

Simply put...you need to read what the FDCPA provides for and contrast it with much of the crap people tend to believe is required. Short letters ARE NOT the best way to address legitimate disputes.

[motoguy]

Under federal law, what you requested only obligates them to get you a few pieces of information. My response had NOTHING to do with your expectation of what you might receive in terms of asking for identifying infomation but rather that they really don't have to provide what you probably think they do...

 

What they have to provide seems to be pretty vague as well. The FDCPA repeatedly references "validation", but doesn't seem to give a definition of what "validation" actually includes.

 

Simply put...you need to read what the FDCPA provides for and contrast it with much of the crap people tend to believe is required. Short letters ARE NOT the best way to address legitimate disputes.

 

Which is why I didn't send the "kitchen sink" letter, either.

 

It seems to me that what is required by the FDCPA (due to vagueness, I'm not sure what IS required) is still quite different than what is required in court. In court, without the wet-ink signature on a document, account history, accounting of interest, principal, mailing proofs, etc, it seems the CA will lose. I have went to court against Midland Credit Management based on above info, and they quickly decided to settle out of court (with prejudice in my favor).

 

My plan was to send this letter, expecting back either:

 

1) A request for proof of identity

 

or

 

2) whatever plain, short, form-letter (with minimal information) they send as typical "validation".

 

 

If "1" is received, I dispute and request "2". If "2" is received, I dispute, and request further documentation (account history, proof of contract, etc). Basically, my plan was based on dogged persistence, plain and simple. Make them put in enough time and effort that it's not worth pursuing this file / claim.

 

If my thought process if flawed, I am certainly open to suggestions. The letters that have been sent can't be undone, but I also don't think they can limit or hurt my case. I simply consider them to be the beginning of what I view as a process. I never expected these couple of sentences to cause a CA to disappear.

 

If you have an alternative strategy / path you would suggest, I'm all ears.

[centex]

Under federal law, what you requested only obligates them to get you a few pieces of information. My response had NOTHING to do with your expectation of what you might receive in terms of asking for identifying infomation but rather that they really don't have to provide what you probably think they do...

 

What they have to provide seems to be pretty vague as well. The FDCPA repeatedly references "validation", but doesn't seem to give a definition of what "validation" actually includes.

 

Simply put...you need to read what the FDCPA provides for and contrast it with much of the crap people tend to believe is required. Short letters ARE NOT the best way to address legitimate disputes.

 

Which is why I didn't send the "kitchen sink" letter, either.

 

It seems to me that what is required by the FDCPA (due to vagueness, I'm not sure what IS required) is still quite different than what is required in court. In court, without the wet-ink signature on a document, account history, accounting of interest, principal, mailing proofs, etc, it seems the CA will lose. I have went to court against Midland Credit Management based on above info, and they quickly decided to settle out of court (with prejudice in my favor).

 

My plan was to send this letter, expecting back either:

 

1) A request for proof of identity

 

or

 

2) whatever plain, short, form-letter (with minimal information) they send as typical "validation".

 

 

If "1" is received, I dispute and request "2". If "2" is received, I dispute, and request further documentation (account history, proof of contract, etc). Basically, my plan was based on dogged persistence, plain and simple. Make them put in enough time and effort that it's not worth pursuing this file / claim.

 

If my thought process if flawed, I am certainly open to suggestions. The letters that have been sent can't be undone, but I also don't think they can limit or hurt my case. I simply consider them to be the beginning of what I view as a process. I never expected these couple of sentences to cause a CA to disappear.

 

If you have an alternative strategy / path you would suggest, I'm all ears.

 

I would not have sent a generic letter. I would have been specific about WHY I was disputing and placed material elements of the claim at issue. Most of my letters were one-and-done although they did run about two pages in length in some instances. The key is to resolve the matter as expeditiously as possible, not drag it out into perpetuity.

 

And no, this was not an approach that worked only with my ID theft/fraud matters...it is the same approach I used with acquaintances and where the letter was placed onto THEIR letterhead (not mine).

[Bobbydebt]

Under federal law, what you requested only obligates them to get you a few pieces of information. My response had NOTHING to do with your expectation of what you might receive in terms of asking for identifying infomation but rather that they really don't have to provide what you probably think they do...

 

What they have to provide seems to be pretty vague as well. The FDCPA repeatedly references "validation", but doesn't seem to give a definition of what "validation" actually includes.

 

Simply put...you need to read what the FDCPA provides for and contrast it with much of the crap people tend to believe is required. Short letters ARE NOT the best way to address legitimate disputes.

 

Which is why I didn't send the "kitchen sink" letter, either.

 

It seems to me that what is required by the FDCPA (due to vagueness, I'm not sure what IS required) is still quite different than what is required in court. In court, without the wet-ink signature on a document, account history, accounting of interest, principal, mailing proofs, etc, it seems the CA will lose. I have went to court against Midland Credit Management based on above info, and they quickly decided to settle out of court (with prejudice in my favor).

 

My plan was to send this letter, expecting back either:

 

1) A request for proof of identity

 

or

 

2) whatever plain, short, form-letter (with minimal information) they send as typical "validation".

 

 

If "1" is received, I dispute and request "2". If "2" is received, I dispute, and request further documentation (account history, proof of contract, etc). Basically, my plan was based on dogged persistence, plain and simple. Make them put in enough time and effort that it's not worth pursuing this file / claim.

 

If my thought process if flawed, I am certainly open to suggestions. The letters that have been sent can't be undone, but I also don't think they can limit or hurt my case. I simply consider them to be the beginning of what I view as a process. I never expected these couple of sentences to cause a CA to disappear.

 

If you have an alternative strategy / path you would suggest, I'm all ears.

 

I would not have sent a generic letter. I would have been specific about WHY I was disputing and placed material elements of the claim at issue. Most of my letters were one-and-done although they did run about two pages in length in some instances. The key is to resolve the matter as expeditiously as possible, not drag it out into perpetuity.

 

And no, this was not an approach that worked only with my ID theft/fraud matters...it is the same approach I used with acquaintances and where the letter was placed onto THEIR letterhead (not mine).

 

Im sure a letter ghost written by an attorney still has more of an effect than what 99% of consumers send in.

 

Im sure all proper state statutes were referenced, giving the letter an overall competent litigious feel.

 

The reason why I agree with a vague DV is because it throws the burden of proof into the CA's hands. It is a simple way to see what type of hand the CA has, without showing your hand at all. The CA cant answer your specific questions and have you dead from the get-go. Minimum risk for maximum reward.

[motoguy]

I would not have sent a generic letter. I would have been specific about WHY I was disputing and placed material elements of the claim at issue. Most of my letters were one-and-done although they did run about two pages in length in some instances. The key is to resolve the matter as expeditiously as possible, not drag it out into perpetuity.

 

And no, this was not an approach that worked only with my ID theft/fraud matters...it is the same approach I used with acquaintances and where the letter was placed onto THEIR letterhead (not mine).

 

Fair enough. I have sent the generic letter, so that can't be undone. However, I don't see how it has limited my options. If they respond with some generic form, I can always come back with the a dispute of proper validation, then hit them with a "kitchen sink" version, Spears v. Brennan, FTC Wollman, etc, right?

 

If I understand correctly, you're not stating that I went down a limiting, or negative (for me) path, but rather I went down a less-efficient path. Would this be accurate?

 

I'm not arguing that your process isn't better; I have very little doubt that it most likely is. Being my first time at personally fighting a CA (last time I used an attorney, and I learned a lot), I would prefer to be cautious and not potentially damage my case with a mis-statement. I'm ok with "functional, but not max efficiency" right now.

 

That being said, I'm curious what your path would be, based on my current point in the process.

[motoguy]

Im sure a letter ghost written by an attorney still has more of an effect than what 99% of consumers send in.

 

Im sure all proper state statutes were referenced, giving the letter an overall competent litigious feel.

 

As mentioned above, I fought Midland Credit Management last year. They sued, I retained an attorney, we filed counter-suit, Midland stalled for a bit, then requested withdrawal of both suits, and settlement (we demanded, and received, prejudice in my favor on the case). I consider that a win, as my goal was to kill the debt / remove the TL, not necessarily cash out on violations.

 

That being said, I have a file with the correspondence between my attorney and the CA. I have all KINDS of stuff listed in the Affirmative Defenses, Interrogatories, Request for Disclosure, etc. I am sure I would defeat the CA in court, with this information (it's exactly what was used by my attorney, and even he admitted they were cut and dry form documents he used in these cases). However, I would like to make this go away before court, for obvious reasons.

 

What I don't know, is how much of this detailed legal info is pertinent, and applicable, pre-trial? Is there a way to disclose that "I do have the information to fight and win, you don't, so just go away"? I'd hate to send in a bunch of the demands (as demanded by my attorney), and realize that stuff is worthless pre-trial.

 

The reason why I agree with a vague DV is because it throws the burden of proof into the CA's hands. It is a simple way to see what type of hand the CA has, without showing your hand at all. The CA cant answer your specific questions and have you dead from the get-go. Minimum risk for maximum reward.

 

Agreed. I risk very little, possibly get lucky and have them go away, or at the very least, start the process while buying myself time to learn more detailed methods, requirements and aspects. I didn't want to make demands that I am unsure of, or which may not be applicable. By simply holding them accountable to the FDCPA, it puts everything their shoulders, which I feel may also create violations that otherwise may not have occurred.

 

Again, I'm certainly open to suggestions on the "path to success" that others may take, given my circumstances.

[motoguy]

Asset Acceptance received their 2 DV letters on Jan 7. I have heard nothing from them in a long while. Today, I receive a letter in the mail from them.

 

Instead of the typical "pay, or we'll ruin your life!" letter, this is a touchy feely "We understand people sometimes miss their obligations. Let us help to assuage your conscious, by giving you the opportunity to take care of your responsibilities. We understand. We care. Really." type of letter. Complete with brightly colored logo, picture of some guy staring into space contemplating the meaning of life, etc. I'm kind of flattered they spent the money to send the color document (obviously printed on their consumer photo-printer).

 

Ignore? As my letters were not sent in a "timely" (within 30 days of original notice) manner, this does not constitute a violation, correct?

[motoguy]

Update here:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=423830

 

Atlantic Credit and Finance filed suit on 1-11-2010, 6 days after receiving my DV letter. To this date, I have received no communication from them.

[motoguy]

I received a reply today from Asset Acceptance regarding 1 of the accounts they hold (I sent each DV letter in a separate envelope). This is their reply:

 

 

 

I'm curious what I should request from them next. A full statement of account, from the time the account was opened? A copy of the signed contract? Letter from OC verifying the accuracy and completeness of the information (which I'm sure doesn't exist)?

 

Thoughts?

[Bobbydebt]

That doesnt look they obtained additional information from the OC.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Bobbydebt

[motoguy]

That doesnt look they obtained additional information from the OC.

 

 

Agreed. Should my next letter request a complete statement of the account? Copy of signed agreement with the CA? Copy of assignment / sale paper from the OC guaranteeing the accuracy and completeness of the account information? Just kind of curious where to go from here.

[vintagespeed]

disregard. old fred.

Edited February 10, 2010 by vintagespeed

[jtoast]

*nod*

 

Unless you can afford to write a check if they sue you, in SOL items are not things to be aggressive on. My usual method is to work on the other half of credit repair until the SOL clock dings "finished."

Edited February 10, 2010 by jtoast

[motoguy]

Interesting note...upon checking court information online, I discovered that Asset Acceptance filed suit against me on 2-8-10. I have yet to be served, and I don't know if the suit is regarding this case (old Capital One debt of $700 or so), or another file they have (Chase charge-off for around $3700).

 

I have received the above DV response to the Capitol One file, but have received no reply to my DV request for the Chase file. Both DV letters were received by their office on 1-8-10.

 

I find it interesting that I have received nothing but letters from these folks for a year or more, however shortly after receiving my DV requests both Atlantic and Asset Acceptance file suit.

[jtoast]

I find it interesting that I have received nothing but letters from these folks for a year or more, however shortly after receiving my DV requests both Atlantic and Asset Acceptance file suit.

This is why I do not suggest attacking debts that are not past the SOL unless you have the money to pay them.

[motoguy]

This is why I do not suggest attacking debts that are not past the SOL unless you have the money to pay them.

 

Well, I won't be paying the debt, and I'll still be "taking care" of the issue for a fraction of the old debt amount.

 

I'll be paying the attorney to fight it, and based on previous experience (myself and others) this debt will go away. Truth be told, I'd rather get it dismissed with prejudice and a settlement (like the last one) than deal with all the letter writing anyway. That one fell swoop means I don't have to deal with the CA any more, it's removed from my credit record, and I don't have to worry about it popping back up.

 

The irony of all of this, though, is that the house refi (which caused my initial foray into credit repair) went through several weeks ago. By the time I need to worry about credit items again, the SOL on all of these debts will have passed (late 2011).