Jump to content




Welcome to CreditBoards!


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to CreditBoards! Like most online communities, you must register to post in our community, but don't worry - this is a simple process requiring minimal information for you to sign up. Be a part of CreditBoards by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Read These Items!

  • If you're getting an Authentication mismatch error: Clear your cache. Log out of CB. Delete your cookie. Close your browser. Open your browser and log back in.

Photo

Confused on the Thirty Day Deadline issue?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#26 ICANHASMUNY?

ICANHASMUNY?

    Forum Leads - State Laws

  • Forum Leads
  • 15,653 posts

Posted 11 June 2011 - 03:24 PM

6. Written Notice – Debt collectors must send a written notice stating the amount of the debt, the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a statement that the debtor has 30 days to in writing dispute the debt. Upon receiving written notice that a consumer disputes a debt,

the collector within 30 days must obtain written verification and validation of the amount of the debt, the creditor to whom the debt is owed and must mail said verification to the consumer.

This is wrong


7. Proof of debts – Debt collectors are required by federal law to send "verification and validation" of a debt when the alleged debtor in writing disputes the debt within 30 days of a debt collector's first contact.

The debt collector must send supporting documentation proving a debt is owed and until they send proof of debt they may not communicate or attempt to collect the alleged debt

this is right


.
It is important the alleged debtor request validation and verification within 30 days of a debt collector's first contact and that the dispute letter be certified return receipt requested, to establish a paper trail.


What Federal Law? I don't care how Big the Law firm is, they haven't read the FDCPA, nor heard from Jack yet. I swear imma call them Monday. This pisses me off.


I visited said web site and had a Live chat session. explained that they are wrong wrong wrong.....

under the FDCPA a collector "must" only cease collection until they provide validation.

http://www.ftc.gov/o...etters/cass.htm


III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?"

Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received.

Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992).




#27 jack1212

jack1212

    Dispute Influence

  • Members
  • 13,120 posts

Posted 12 June 2011 - 07:00 AM

Thanks MUNY.

How did the session go? Did they still stick by what they said?

#28 Jen23514

Jen23514
  • Members
  • 12,565 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 08:31 AM

To add a little...In Texas, the TFC also gives the consumer the right to request validation at ANY time, not just within thirty days of receiving a dunning letter. Again, only in Texas. Great post Jack.


Yes, in TX when you use the TFC, response is required within 30 days.

Great post friend! :good:


Small correction to your post: you can request validation at any time under the FDCPA as well ;)

#29 ICANHASMUNY?

ICANHASMUNY?

    Forum Leads - State Laws

  • Forum Leads
  • 15,653 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 10:02 PM

Thanks MUNY.

How did the session go? Did they still stick by what they said?


no, I got a good day, thanks for your input and they disconnected....

I think it's mostly a typo and bad grammar.

#30 jack1212

jack1212

    Dispute Influence

  • Members
  • 13,120 posts

Posted 17 June 2011 - 03:22 AM




This thread is to clear up all confusion on the "30 Day Timeframe" that is often Misunderstood here. If it did not answer your question, ask away.

First read the FDCPA closely.

FDCPA:
When you get the FIRST dunning letter from a CA, YOU as a consumer, have 30 days to dispute it with the CA.

Does the CA have 30 Days to respond to my DV request?

There is NO DEADLINE for them to respond under the FDCPA. They are under NO 30 day deadline.
However, If your DV is timely, they MUST cease all collection activity until they send you DV. They can legally wait 7 days or 7 months.

What does timely mean?
It means that you request DV from the CA within 30 days of you getting the First dunning letter.

What if the date of the letter only gives me less than 30 days?
The Consumers 30 day clock starts when you receive the letter. The date on it is irrelevant. (Keep the envelope, as the postmark date may back you up)

What if I Got slack and missed the 30 days?
All is not lost. You can DV ANYTIME. However, outside the 30 days, they do not have to respond, nor cease collections. (I have DV'd several past the 30 days and found that 98% still send something).

Are the 30 Days "Calendar Days or Business Days?"
Calendar days. Including weekends and Holidays.

Why do some Sample Letters say that the CA Must respond in 30 days?
I have no idea. There is nothing in the FDCPA to support that. I wish that letter would be deleted from all internets.

My Best Method:
Send a DV within 1-2 days of getting the First dunning letter, CMRR. Once they get it, they Can't legally report if they haven't already. I have beaten many CA'S to the reports so to speak.

But CRA's have 30 days to complete an Investigation, Right?
Correct. Unless you send them new information, it will extend their time to 45 days. Also if you dispute based on the yearly free reports, they may extend it to 45 days. So never send in anything extra until the dispute is complete, or you will have to wait another 15 days.

What about a FCRA 623 Dispute with a Data Furnisher?
Yes, under that, a DF must respond within 30 days. However you must be SPECIFIC as to what you are disputing. (Lates, Dates, amount, etc)

Whats a Data Furnisher?
ANYONE who reports a TL to a CRA.

OC's, CA's and if you work for the cast of Jersey Shore, and they report you to the CRA's each month, they are DF's.

Hope that clears up some confusion. If not, ask away. :wave:


Not to start a fire ut i have to disagree with some off the items u listed..


7. Proof of debts – Debt collectors are required by federal law to send "verification and validation" of a debt when the alleged debtor in writing disputes the debt within 30 days of a debt collector's first contact. The debt collector must send supporting documentation proving a debt is owed and until they send proof of debt they may not communicate or attempt to collect the alleged debt. It is important the alleged debtor request validation and verification within 30 days of a debt collector's first contact and that the dispute letter be certified return receipt requested, to establish a paper trail.

That statement came from Morgan and Morgan website, and they are a BIG FIRM here in FL http://www.forthepeo..._harassment.htm



No, it's a Good Debate. Just show me WHERE in the FDCPA is states that. Once again, you have attorneys trying to make a name for themselves and don't know a damn thing.



then again as i stated before not tryn to start a fire, the quote i posted came from morgan and morgan, lol they have ad's on CB


Yea, i know. Not your fault. I think MUNY got em fixed. Thanks for pointing it out though.

#31 ICANHASMUNY?

ICANHASMUNY?

    Forum Leads - State Laws

  • Forum Leads
  • 15,653 posts

Posted 17 June 2011 - 07:42 PM

those guys are injury / accident lawyers moving into FDCPA claims because it's a new hot button issue with consumers.

did you read the link?

http://www.ftc.gov/o...etters/cass.htm


III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992).


http://openjurist.or...rld-systems-inc



Smith next argues that Transworld violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(B) by failing to verify the appellant's debt after receiving Smith's letter. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(B) provides:



If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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 a 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.

After correctly noting that "[t]he purpose of § 1692g(B) is to require debt collecting agencies to cease collection activities if the amount has been disputed until the debt collector verifies the accuracy of the amount claimed,

#32 cprems

cprems
  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 27 June 2011 - 02:43 PM

For Texas residents only

Just to add to the TEXAS TFC392.

DV can be requested at ANY time and either of these 3 things must happen:

1. Validate the debt within 30 days of receiving a DV

2. Admit it is inaccurate and modify the trade line as requested by the consumer - deletion.

3. Tell you that they need more time to validate the debt.

Sec. 392.202. CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR
CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES. (a) An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item
that is in a third-party debt collector's or credit bureau's file on the individual and that
relates to a debt being collected by the third-party debt collector may notify in writing the
third-party debt collector of the inaccuracy. The third-party debt collector shall make a
written record of the dispute. If the third-party debt collector does not report information
related to the dispute to a credit bureau, the third-party debt collector shall cease
collection efforts until an investigation of the dispute described by Subsections (B)-(e)
determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any. If the third-party debt collector reports
information related to the dispute to a credit bureau, the reporting third-party debt
collector shall initiate an investigation of the dispute described by Subsections (B)-(e) and
shall cease collection efforts until the investigation determines the accurate amount of the
debt, if any. This section does not affect the application of Chapter 20, Business &
Commerce Code, to a third-party debt collector subject to that chapter.
(B) Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, a
third-party debt collector who initiates an investigation shall send a written statement to
the individual:

(1) denying the inaccuracy;
(2) admitting the inaccuracy; or
(3) stating that the third-party debt collector has not had sufficient time
to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy.

© If the third-party debt collector admits that the item is inaccurate under
Subsection (B), the third-party debt collector shall:
(1) not later than the fifth business day after the date of the admission,
correct the item in the relevant file; and
(2) immediately cease collection efforts related to the portion of the debt
that was found to be inaccurate and on correction of the item send, to each person who
has previously received a report from the third-party debt collector containing the
inaccurate information, notice of the inaccuracy and a copy of an accurate report.
(d) If the third-party debt collector states that there has not been sufficient time
to complete an investigation, the third-party debt collector shall immediately:
(1) change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual;
(2) send to each person who previously received the report containing
the information a notice that is equivalent to a notice under Subsection © and a copy of
the changed report; and
(3) cease collection efforts.
(e) On completion by the third-party debt collector of the investigation, the
third-party debt collector shall inform the individual of the determination of whether the
item is accurate or inaccurate. If the third-party debt collector determines that the
information was accurate, the third-party debt collector may again report that information
and resume collection efforts.
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 851, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

#33 Lian

Lian
  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 08:04 PM

The FDCPA does NOT state that debt verification must include documents proving the legitimacy of the debt.
It only says that the debt collector must obtain "verification of the debt" from the original creditor. That could simply be a statement: "Yes, the debt is owed to us." A statement of verification is all that the statute actually requires. The debt collector does not maintain OC account business records, and is not in a position to "prove" legitimacy of a debt. So most courts dont interpret verification as putting such a requirement on debt collectors.
One of the problems with FDCPA 809(B) is that the statute itself does not define "verification." That leaves its interpretation to the courts.
Various courts have been all over the place in their intepretations. Most courts do not interpret verification to mandate legal proofs of the debt itself. Yes, you will find decisions where some courts have held that verification does, in fact, require proofs by the debt collector. Those decisions are only precedential if issued at the appellate court level, and then only within that appellate district. At the lower court levels, decisions by one judge are not even binding upon another judge sitting on the same bench.
If you assert that proper verification of debt requires any form of legal proofs, then the only person that matters in resolution of that assertion is the judge that hears your pleading. You might get a judge to rule in your favor, but that is not the norm.
There simply is no clear statutory definition of what constitutes proper debt verification. It is a judicial determination, on a case-by-case basis.
As for the court of jurisdiction, FDCPA 811 specifies that, for debt other than real property, the action must be brought in either the judicial district where the consumer signed the contract, or the judicial district where the consumer resides at the time of the legal action. The latter is the jurisdiction that usually prevails, and thus the laws of the state of residence of the consumer at the time of the legal action usually prevail. If you did not sign the contract in Texas, or currently reside there, then the Texas version of the FDCPA would not apply.

#34 ICANHASMUNY?

ICANHASMUNY?

    Forum Leads - State Laws

  • Forum Leads
  • 15,653 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:25 PM

Lian, this isn't a thread about validation/verification. so your post is off topic.

it's about the 30 day deadline in which a consumer should to respond to a CA.

#35 Jen23514

Jen23514
  • Members
  • 12,565 posts

Posted 03 July 2011 - 12:09 AM

The FDCPA does NOT state that debt verification must include documents proving the legitimacy of the debt.

It only says that the debt collector must obtain "verification of the debt" from the original creditor. That could simply be a statement: "Yes, the debt is owed to us." A statement of verification is all that the statute actually requires. The debt collector does not maintain OC account business records, and is not in a position to "prove" legitimacy of a debt. So most courts dont interpret verification as putting such a requirement on debt collectors.

One of the problems with FDCPA 809(B) is that the statute itself does not define "verification." That leaves its interpretation to the courts.

Various courts have been all over the place in their intepretations. Most courts do not interpret verification to mandate legal proofs of the debt itself. Yes, you will find decisions where some courts have held that verification does, in fact, require proofs by the debt collector. Those decisions are only precedential if issued at the appellate court level, and then only within that appellate district. At the lower court levels, decisions by one judge are not even binding upon another judge sitting on the same bench.
If you assert that proper verification of debt requires any form of legal proofs, then the only person that matters in resolution of that assertion is the judge that hears your pleading. You might get a judge to rule in your favor, but that is not the norm.

There simply is no clear statutory definition of what constitutes proper debt verification. It is a judicial determination, on a case-by-case basis.

As for the court of jurisdiction, FDCPA 811 specifies that, for debt other than real property, the action must be brought in either the judicial district where the consumer signed the contract, or the judicial district where the consumer resides at the time of the legal action. The latter is the jurisdiction that usually prevails, and thus the laws of the state of residence of the consumer at the time of the legal action usually prevail.

If you did not sign the contract in Texas, or currently reside there, then the Texas version of the FDCPA would not apply.


you are correct on most accounts here. I think the reason they went ahead and posted information about Texas, is that it has a different 30 statute than almost all other states AND has stronger private right of action for TX residents than the FDCPA.

What you said in Bold above is very true - and when people are asking for validation, they should be fully aware of their state laws (texas or otherwise) and know that if they send the letter demanding the kitchen sink before 30 days, that it's not required, and the judge may not require the CA to give you the kitchen sink if it goes so far.

I think your points add some clarification to newbs who might otherwise be struggling with this topic, which is difficult for many.

#36 cprems

cprems
  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 03 July 2011 - 07:52 AM

This is why I prefaced the post with "For Texas residents only"

Consumers in Texas, have much stronger State law consumer laws that demand validation within 30 days of a written dispute!

Validation in Texas, using Texas law, requires a validation at any time regardless if the 30 day initial window has expired.

The FDCPA does NOT afford this protection after the initial 30 days of contact.

Always check your State consumer laws for State specific requirements.


The FDCPA does NOT state that debt verification must include documents proving the legitimacy of the debt.
It only says that the debt collector must obtain "verification of the debt" from the original creditor. That could simply be a statement: "Yes, the debt is owed to us." A statement of verification is all that the statute actually requires. The debt collector does not maintain OC account business records, and is not in a position to "prove" legitimacy of a debt. So most courts dont interpret verification as putting such a requirement on debt collectors.
One of the problems with FDCPA 809(B) is that the statute itself does not define "verification." That leaves its interpretation to the courts.
Various courts have been all over the place in their intepretations. Most courts do not interpret verification to mandate legal proofs of the debt itself. Yes, you will find decisions where some courts have held that verification does, in fact, require proofs by the debt collector. Those decisions are only precedential if issued at the appellate court level, and then only within that appellate district. At the lower court levels, decisions by one judge are not even binding upon another judge sitting on the same bench.
If you assert that proper verification of debt requires any form of legal proofs, then the only person that matters in resolution of that assertion is the judge that hears your pleading. You might get a judge to rule in your favor, but that is not the norm.
There simply is no clear statutory definition of what constitutes proper debt verification. It is a judicial determination, on a case-by-case basis.
As for the court of jurisdiction, FDCPA 811 specifies that, for debt other than real property, the action must be brought in either the judicial district where the consumer signed the contract, or the judicial district where the consumer resides at the time of the legal action. The latter is the jurisdiction that usually prevails, and thus the laws of the state of residence of the consumer at the time of the legal action usually prevail. If you did not sign the contract in Texas, or currently reside there, then the Texas version of the FDCPA would not apply.



#37 cprems

cprems
  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:01 AM

Jack's thread on the FDCPA 30 day deadline has gotten off topic here.

I am partially to blame. :blush2: :cry2:

So I apologize - Now to get this on track.

This information is a must for anyone new to credit repair.

So having said that...

Let's discuss the 30 day Federal time frames.




This thread is to clear up all confusion on the “30 Day Timeframe” that is often Misunderstood here. If it did not answer your question, ask away.

First read the FDCPA closely.

FDCPA:
When you get the FIRST dunning letter from a CA, YOU as a consumer, have 30 days to dispute it with the CA.

Does the CA have 30 Days to respond to my DV request?

There is NO DEADLINE for them to respond under the FDCPA. They are under NO 30 day deadline.
However, If your DV is timely, they MUST cease all collection activity until they send you DV. They can legally wait 7 days or 7 months.

What does timely mean?
It means that you request DV from the CA within 30 days of you getting the First dunning letter.

What if the date of the letter only gives me less than 30 days?
The Consumers 30 day clock starts when you receive the letter. The date on it is irrelevant. (Keep the envelope, as the postmark date may back you up)

What if I Got slack and missed the 30 days?
All is not lost. You can DV ANYTIME. However, outside the 30 days, they do not have to respond, nor cease collections. (I have DV’d several past the 30 days and found that 98% still send something).

Are the 30 Days “Calendar Days or Business Days?”
Calendar days. Including weekends and Holidays.

Why do some Sample Letters say that the CA Must respond in 30 days?
I have no idea. There is nothing in the FDCPA to support that. I wish that letter would be deleted from all internets.

My Best Method:
Send a DV within 1-2 days of getting the First dunning letter, CMRR. Once they get it, they Can’t legally report if they haven’t already. I have beaten many CA’S to the reports so to speak.

But CRA’s have 30 days to complete an Investigation, Right?
Correct. Unless you send them new information, it will extend their time to 45 days. Also if you dispute based on the yearly free reports, they may extend it to 45 days. So never send in anything extra until the dispute is complete, or you will have to wait another 15 days.

What about a FCRA 623 Dispute with a Data Furnisher?
Yes, under that, a DF must respond within 30 days. However you must be SPECIFIC as to what you are disputing. (Lates, Dates, amount, etc)

Whats a Data Furnisher?
ANYONE who reports a TL to a CRA.

OC’s, CA’s and if you work for the cast of Jersey Shore, and they report you to the CRA’s each month, they are DF’s.

Hope that clears up some confusion. If not, ask away. :wave:



#38 TownBoxer

TownBoxer
  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 08:49 AM

A few questions regarding the 30 day rule:

There is a CA account on my credit report, and I have never received any communication from this CA. Does this make the CA exempt from the 30 day timeframe? I know they are supposed to notify the consumer when they become a collector on your account, but this never happened. My understanding of the 30 day rules is that I have 30 days from when first communication was established, but communication has never been established, and the CA has been reporting this account for almost a year. If I send a DV, will this not prevent them from reporting until they validate?

PS - I have lived at the same address for 2 years in Florida, so I know that the CA didnt send a dunning letter that was lost in the mail, or anything of the sort.

Edited by TownBoxer, 20 July 2011 - 08:54 AM.


#39 jack1212

jack1212

    Dispute Influence

  • Members
  • 13,120 posts

Posted 23 July 2011 - 05:12 PM

A few questions regarding the 30 day rule:

There is a CA account on my credit report, and I have never received any communication from this CA. Does this make the CA exempt from the 30 day timeframe?

No.

I know they are supposed to notify the consumer when they become a collector on your account, but this never happened.

Im not aware of any such Federal Law. However there seems to be a state law somewhere in which i read of this. I can't remember which state it was.

My understanding of the 30 day rules is that I have 30 days from when first communication was established, but communication has never been established, and the CA has been reporting this account for almost a year. If I send a DV, will this not prevent them from reporting until they validate?

Lemme think. Just woke up.

PS - I have lived at the same address for 2 years in Florida, so I know that the CA didnt send a dunning letter that was lost in the mail, or anything of the sort.

97% of the time, they claim to have sent them, but never did in the first place.



#40 Lian

Lian
  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 24 July 2011 - 05:14 AM

Two points. One concerning disputes and the 30-day period, and the other concerning the need for providing documentary evidence in a debt verification letter.

The FDCPA is a debt collections practices statute. The periods pertaining to disputes, such as the 30-day period to complete an investigation, are under the FCRA, and NOT the FDCPA. Disputes under the FCRA apply to the accuracy or completness of information reported to your credit file. They apply to correction or deletion of specific items of information. Debt verification requests under FDCPA 809(B) dont relate directly to credit reporting, but rather to verification of identity of the creditor and their claim to the debt, and to ascertaining the asserted amount of the debt. In many cases, the DV process is conducted where there has been no credit reporting, thus making the dispute processes under the FCRA inapplicable. Except for Texas, there are no time periods for verification.

If you wish to invoke the dispute process of FCRA 611(a)(1) or FCRA 623(a)(8), a formal dispute can be made aside from, or in addition to the DV process. They are separate matters with separate statutory provisions.

As for providing legal documentation of debt verification, the FDCPA does not explicity require this. It is kinda mushy on what does and does not constitute debt verification. Just as with any law that is subject to interpretation, it has thus been left to the courts to determine that issue on a case by case basis. The issue of proper debt verification/validation has been litigated many times in many, many jurisdictions with very different interpretations. Some interpret the statute broadly, and others more specifically. Sure, there are legal decisions holding that documentation of debt is required, but many more who dont require supporting documentary evidence. Ultimately, what is or is not necessary to constitute debt verification under FDCPA 809(B) is what the judge says it is. No one on a forum can make that determination. That is a holding of law. If you live in a jurisdiction where the matter has been litigated and appealed to their court of appeals, there may be some standard in that state. It has never reached the Supreme Court, so their is simply no uniform standard for requiring documentation to support debt verification.

Edited by Lian, 24 July 2011 - 05:23 AM.


#41 jack1212

jack1212

    Dispute Influence

  • Members
  • 13,120 posts

Posted 24 July 2011 - 06:52 AM

No one said the CA had a 30 day deadline to respond under the FDCPA as you implied. Thats the whole point of this thread. If you read it, you would have known.

Lian,

This post has NOTHING to do with what is, or is not acceptable as DV. It is about timely DV requests.

Please reread the first thread and stop throwing things off topic, and confuse newbies looking for answers.

If you wish to discuss the FCRA and "What is DV", please feel free to start your own thread.

Also, see post #36. This is the second time you were told of this.

#42 ambernicole1983

ambernicole1983
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 09:56 PM

Ok. I've read through this thread and I'm a little confused....as usual.

I sent, exactly 30 days ago, a letter for validation to a CA. BUT is was older than 30 days on my account. So...they do not have to respond to me? Is that what we're saying???

#43 cprems

cprems
  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:03 PM

Depends on what State you reside in as to what the CA needs to do.


If you sent a timely DV (within 30 days of receiving the letter) the CA has to either validate the debt OR cease collection activities (including reporting of the debt)

As long as you responded to the letter they sent within 30 days days, it does not matter how old the account is.

Always wait 30 + 5 days (mailing time) for validation.


Ok. I've read through this thread and I'm a little confused....as usual.

I sent, exactly 30 days ago, a letter for validation to a CA. BUT is was older than 30 days on my account. So...they do not have to respond to me? Is that what we're saying???



#44 ambernicole1983

ambernicole1983
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:11 PM

I sent the letter for validation after the 30 days I'm given. So Does that make the whole Validation Process pointless??!!

Also, I have no idea what state we fall under. The account was opened in SC, sent to collections while we were in GA and now we live in WI.


Depends on what State you reside in as to what the CA needs to do.


If you sent a timely DV (within 30 days of receiving the letter) the CA has to either validate the debt OR cease collection activities (including reporting of the debt)

As long as you responded to the letter they sent within 30 days days, it does not matter how old the account is.

Always wait 30 + 5 days (mailing time) for validation.



Ok. I've read through this thread and I'm a little confused....as usual.

I sent, exactly 30 days ago, a letter for validation to a CA. BUT is was older than 30 days on my account. So...they do not have to respond to me? Is that what we're saying???



#45 cprems

cprems
  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:17 PM

How old is the default?

This may be SOL depending on which State you were in at the time.

If you missed the 30 day window, some CA's will send validation or sell it onto another CA. If the OC is assigning the account, the CA will send it back to the OC.

WI has some good consumer laws. Start reading up on them.

Also, WI is one of two States with a Statute of repose - 6 year sol. Once the SOL is reached, the debt itself is extinguished.


I sent the letter for validation after the 30 days I'm given. So Does that make the whole Validation Process pointless??!!

Also, I have no idea what state we fall under. The account was opened in SC, sent to collections while we were in GA and now we live in WI.



Depends on what State you reside in as to what the CA needs to do.


If you sent a timely DV (within 30 days of receiving the letter) the CA has to either validate the debt OR cease collection activities (including reporting of the debt)

As long as you responded to the letter they sent within 30 days days, it does not matter how old the account is.

Always wait 30 + 5 days (mailing time) for validation.



Ok. I've read through this thread and I'm a little confused....as usual.

I sent, exactly 30 days ago, a letter for validation to a CA. BUT is was older than 30 days on my account. So...they do not have to respond to me? Is that what we're saying???



#46 ambernicole1983

ambernicole1983
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:25 PM

The default is right at a year old, well, maybe not even a year. I don't have my debt binder handy at the moment. Close to a year old, give or take a month.

I'll look into the WI consumer laws asap!


How old is the default?

This may be SOL depending on which State you were in at the time.

If you missed the 30 day window, some CA's will send validation or sell it onto another CA. If the OC is assigning the account, the CA will send it back to the OC.

WI has some good consumer laws. Start reading up on them.

Also, WI is one of two States with a Statute of repose - 6 year sol. Once the SOL is reached, the debt itself is extinguished.



I sent the letter for validation after the 30 days I'm given. So Does that make the whole Validation Process pointless??!!

Also, I have no idea what state we fall under. The account was opened in SC, sent to collections while we were in GA and now we live in WI.



Depends on what State you reside in as to what the CA needs to do.


If you sent a timely DV (within 30 days of receiving the letter) the CA has to either validate the debt OR cease collection activities (including reporting of the debt)

As long as you responded to the letter they sent within 30 days days, it does not matter how old the account is.

Always wait 30 + 5 days (mailing time) for validation.



Ok. I've read through this thread and I'm a little confused....as usual.

I sent, exactly 30 days ago, a letter for validation to a CA. BUT is was older than 30 days on my account. So...they do not have to respond to me? Is that what we're saying???



#47 ambernicole1983

ambernicole1983
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:57 PM

*Reading the Wisconsin Consumer Laws* AND IT'S BLOWING MY MIND! LOL Why can't they put things in super simple language for dummies like me?!?!

#48 cprems

cprems
  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 11:47 PM

The WI consumer laws will be your credit bible. Learn them well young Jedi!


*Reading the Wisconsin Consumer Laws* AND IT'S BLOWING MY MIND! LOL Why can't they put things in super simple language for dummies like me?!?!



#49 ambernicole1983

ambernicole1983
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 09:43 AM

UPDATE: OFF TOPIC OF ORIGINAL THREAD: Checked my report this morning and IT'S GONE!!!!!!! It did go back to the OC, but that's ok! I'll work with them now!!! HOORAY!

The WI consumer laws will be your credit bible. Learn them well young Jedi!



*Reading the Wisconsin Consumer Laws* AND IT'S BLOWING MY MIND! LOL Why can't they put things in super simple language for dummies like me?!?!



#50 Mnemonic

Mnemonic
  • Members
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 05 August 2011 - 07:11 AM

If a letter is mailed on 8/5 when the first dunning letter was sent to me on 7/8, does it fall within the 30 days if its postmarked on the 5th? Or is it when they receive it?




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© Copyright 2003 - 2013 Creditboards.com. All rights reserved. No portion of this site may be reproduced without explicit permission from the owners. The content of creditboards.com is subject solely to the personal whim of its admins. We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to remove any and all posts or comments, at any time, for any reason which takes our entirely capricious fancy, or for no particular reason whatsoever, without restriction. Comments or questions regarding the site may be addressed to admin@creditboards.com.