Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
FixMyCredit92

Weird response to DV.

Recommended Posts


That's pretty much validation. Does it show past due or is it a final bill? Is the service address correct? Just make sure it's your bill before you take the next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent Virtuoso sourcing (Directv), a D/V letter.

 

All they sent back was a copy of the bill.

 

No mention of anything else I asked for on the letter.

 

What else did you ask for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent them a common DV letter found on the web, such as proof they are licensed to collect in my state, proof money owed is accurate, etc.

 

They literally sent me a copy of the previous bills from Directv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original creditors don't have to comply with the FDCPA.

 

only third party collectors.

 

you home state laws on collections May cover OC's, may not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its Virtuoso Sourcing on behalf of Directv. I sent the letter to the CA not the OC.

If VS (third party debt collector ?) sent the name of the current owner of the account, the address, the amount , the account number or a copy of a judgment, they validated. If any of the information is wrong , it can be redisputed. if the calls are a nuisance, write them back and say all calls are inconvenient at any time or do not call me again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many myths exist about what constitutes proper validation. Ultimately, it's up to each individual court to determine what constitutes validation per section 809 of the FDCPA. If you read the section of the FDCPA, they don't have to give you much information. They provided you the name of the original creditor, the amount of the debt, and provided a copy of the bill. They should have given you the notice all information was being used to collect a debt as well. What other information do you see that they should have sent per the FDCPA?

 

§ 809. Validation of debts

{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. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during
the 30-day period referred to in subsection {a} unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.

{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.

{d} A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection {a}.

{e} The sending or delivery of any form or notice which
does not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, title V of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or any provision of Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any such provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with debt collection for purposes of this section.

Edited by BeachDweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happened to me with Convergent Outsourcing / T-Mobile. I sent a DV letter as well as challenged the SOL which I believe is 4 years in my state (MD). The debt was removed from my reports but I received a copy of the final bill from T-Mobile as well as a letter from Convergent saying they will respond to my dispute within 30 days. Again, when I checked my reports, the dispute status was listed as resolved and the debt was already removed. AT this stage can they re-age it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happened to me with Convergent Outsourcing / T-Mobile. I sent a DV letter as well as challenged the SOL which I believe is 4 years in my state (MD). The debt was removed from my reports but I received a copy of the final bill from T-Mobile as well as a letter from Convergent saying they will respond to my dispute within 30 days. Again, when I checked my reports, the dispute status was listed as resolved and the debt was already removed. AT this stage can they re-age it?

 

Unless you make a payment on the debt and/or reaffirm the debt is yours, no, they cannot legally change the DOFD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happened to me with Convergent Outsourcing / T-Mobile. I sent a DV letter as well as challenged the SOL which I believe is 4 years in my state (MD). The debt was removed from my reports but I received a copy of the final bill from T-Mobile as well as a letter from Convergent saying they will respond to my dispute within 30 days. Again, when I checked my reports, the dispute status was listed as resolved and the debt was already removed. AT this stage can they re-age it?

 

There is a difference between the SOL in which you can be sued for a debt and the length of time it can be reported on your credit reports. So, even if it is beyond your state's SOL, it may pop back up on your reports with someone else. However, if they change the DOFD when they do that, it is a violation of the FCRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be tracking to see if they do reappear on my reports. DOFD was Nov 2009

 

It might re-appear from another CA. You can't be sued for it, but they can report it until Nov. 2016 (though some CRAs delete a few months early).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll be tracking to see if they do reappear on my reports. DOFD was Nov 2009

 

It might re-appear from another CA. You can't be sued for it, but they can report it until Nov. 2016 (though some CRAs delete a few months early).

Interesting. I always thought once a baddie is removed it couldn't be put back on your report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'll be tracking to see if they do reappear on my reports. DOFD was Nov 2009

It might re-appear from another CA. You can't be sued for it, but they can report it until Nov. 2016 (though some CRAs delete a few months early).

Interesting. I always thought once a baddie is removed it couldn't be put back on your report.

 

 

IIRC, if it is removed by the CA after you send a DV, it can pop back up from another CA. If it was removed by a dispute through the CRA, it cannot be placed back on your report without notice (doing otherwise is called "reinsertion" and it is illegal). But to claim reinsertion, you need the letter from the CRA showing that the account at issue was removed by them.

 

If I'm mistaken, someone please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines