Jump to content

Did LVNV send me a Validation letter included with the Dunning letter?


hangloose
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recently got notice that LVNV purchased my account from Navy Federal in October. I received several e-mails from them and a week later a dunning letter.

I know the typical route is to DV the JDB, but my question is; did LVNV send me a Validation letter with the dunning letter?

My state is Washington which has 6 year SOL so I still have about 2 years within SOL here. I've heard DV'ing a JDB can sometimes trigger a lawsuit.


Did LVNV get wise and start including Validation letters with the dunning to curtail people from DV'ing them?

Here are the pictures from the dunning letter I'm referring to:
https://imgur.com/a/54pA2Dk    (page 4 of 4 of the dunning letter)

https://imgur.com/a/McGBiHz  

https://imgur.com/a/co0p7VK      (page 1 of 4, dunning letter)


Also, just as of today, the Navy Federal account has been removed from at least 2 of my credit reports (TU and EQ. I haven't checked EX yet)
 

Edited by hangloose
Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, hangloose said:

I recently got notice that LVNV purchased my account from Navy Federal in October. I received several e-mails from them and a week later a dunning letter.

I know the typical route is to DV the JDB, but my question is; did LVNV send me a Validation letter with the dunning letter?

My state is Washington which has 6 year SOL so I still have about 2 years within SOL here. I've heard DV'ing a JDB can sometimes trigger a lawsuit.


Did LVNV get wise and start including Validation letters with the dunning to curtail people from DV'ing them?

Here are the pictures from the dunning letter I'm referring to:
https://imgur.com/a/54pA2Dk
https://imgur.com/a/McGBiHz

 

It is very possible they did.  There is either case law or an CFPB opinion somewhere that if the creditor/JDB/CA already sent the information that satisfies DV they don't have to send it again.  I can't remember all the details but given that the bar is so low for validation you can trip over it they are simply anticipating the common reaction from the consumer.  

 

FYI:  This is your third thread on this same subject.  You don't need to keep starting a new one with the same question.  The answer really isn't going to change.  Yes, NFCU can sell your account.  Yes, LVNV can buy it.  Yes, they did meet the standard for DV.  And finally, YES, they are probably going to sue you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter you have STILL is very explicit in that you have a right to dispute.  You NEED to be specific and not just copy and paste some generic letter. 

 

CSN's point is valid...it is far easier to keep the questions contained to one thread.  And you DID bring up the question of validation in the other threads.  Th more threads one creates, the less inclined the readers are to respond because there will be an implicit assumption that, since they just saw the same question, it was answered, but just not in the manner the poster wanted to read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, hangloose said:

Thanks centex, I’ll keep it all contained here. 
 

please correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying I should still DV them? Or could you please elaborate on what you said?

It is up to you how you proceed.  If you have a legitimate basis upon which to dispute, then have at it...and even if you DO NOT have a legitimate basis upon which a successful dispute might rest, it could serve to buy you some time before they look at litigation on that $16K figure that was in the image...

 

The reason you want to be specific in a dispute is that, on occasion, there are State laws which ALSO afford you some protections and should be exercised as appropriate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, legaleagle2012 said:

Read the FDCPA. All they have to provide in DV is the name of the creditor (them) the name of the original creditor if you want it, and the amount. That is all. They do NOT have to respond to a DV request if they already satisfied the requirement.


1692g(a) says that the name of the creditor, the amount of the debt AND the right of the consumer to  dispute and request verification must be included within 5 days of the initial communication.  Why would the right to dispute and request verification be required in the communication if the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt validates the debt?

 

THEN, 1692g(b) specifically states that if the consumer disputes and requests verification, the debt collector cannot continue collection efforts until it validates.  So, subsection (b) requires a debt collector upon receiving a timely DV to cease collection and validate even if it included the information listed in subsection (a).

 

Cite one decision in which the court ruled that providing the name of the creditor and amount of the debt in the initial communication or within 5 days of that communication  allows a debt collector to ignore a timely DV request and continue collection efforts.

 

 

Edited by Bluesie58
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says:   (a)  NOTICE OF DEBT; CONTENTS.--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--

 

 

The letter they sent him contains all of this. They do not have to send another one. If he DVs them all they will do is send a copy of the letter, then sue him. Any argument to the contrary is then moot. Come back on the 29th and see if he DV'd them. The letter satisfies this standard:

 

The validation notice "must be large enough to be easily read and sufficiently prominent to be noticed" - Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, legaleagle2012 said:

It says:   (a)  NOTICE OF DEBT; CONTENTS.--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--

 

 

The letter they sent him contains all of this. They do not have to send another one. If he DVs them all they will do is send a copy of the letter, then sue him. Any argument to the contrary is then moot. Come back on the 29th and see if he DV'd them. The letter satisfies this standard:

 

The validation notice "must be large enough to be easily read and sufficiently prominent to be noticed" - Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988).


Read the context of the Swanson citation.  It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the notice validates or verifies a debt.  It had to do with the notice being overshadowed by other language and font size in the letter.
 

You keep focusing on subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) but ignore the rest of subsection (a) and all of subsection (b).  Provide a decision from a court that ruled sending the same letter validates a debt after a timely DV request. 
 

If including the name of the creditor and amount of the debt as required by 1692g(a)(1) & (2) in the initial communication were  sufficient to validate a debt, then (3), (4), and (5) of that subsection would not have been included in the Act.  Subsection (b) which includes the requirement that a debt collector cease communication until obtaining verification would not have been included because the debt was already obtained and validated by stating the name of the creditor and amount of the debt.  “Obtaining” would not be a requirement because there would be nothing to “obtain”.  
 

There would be no decisions from courts ruling that after receiving a timely DV request, debt collectors who even though they included the name of the creditor, amount of the debt, etc. in their letters, must still cease collection activities until they verify the debt.

 

Obviously, neither Congress or the courts consider the name of the creditor and amount of the debt contained in the initial communication akin to “obtaining verification”.

 

“Moreover, the debt collector is statutorily obliged to ‘cease collection of the debt’ until it ‘obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor,’ and mails that information to the consumer. § 1692g(b).” Vangorden v. Second Round, Ltd. P’ship, 897 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2018).


“If a consumer follows § 1692g(a)(4) or (5) by writing to the debt collector to dispute the debt or to request the name of the original creditor, then § 1692g requires the debt collector to "cease collection of the debt ... 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 [these materials are] mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., 991 F.3d 466, 469 (3d Cir. 2021).

 

“Pursuant to section 1692g(b), if a consumer ‘notifies the debt collector in writing’ that the debt is disputed, the debt collector must ‘cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt ... and a copy of such verification... is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.’ 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (b).  Clark v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc.,741 F.3d 487, 490 (4th Cir. 2014).

 

Edited by Bluesie58
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are arguing about something that hasn't even happened, and trying to shift the burden to the debt collector when disputing is the consumer's burden. That letter contains anything and everything that could possibly be required. Name something it doesn't have. Your case law just repeats what the ststute says. 

 

The statute states a copy is just fine:

 

§ 1006.38(c)(2)

 

(2) Response to disputes. Upon receipt of a dispute submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period, a debt collector must cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion of the debt, until the debt collector:

(i) Sends a copy either of verification of the debt or of a judgment to the consumer in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42; 

 

I take that to mean they can resend the verification  information they already gave him. Stuff like this never goes anywhere in court, especially with a JDB who has been sued numerous times for this in the past, and finally desisgned a bullet proof letter. The judge will just look at him and say "exactly what is it they didn't tell you that you need to know?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, legaleagle2012 said:

You are arguing about something that hasn't even happened, and trying to shift the burden to the debt collector when disputing is the consumer's burden. That letter contains anything and everything that could possibly be required. Name something it doesn't have. Your case law just repeats what the ststute says. 

 

The statute states a copy is just fine:

 

§ 1006.38(c)(2)

 

(2) Response to disputes. Upon receipt of a dispute submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period, a debt collector must cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion of the debt, until the debt collector:

(i) Sends a copy either of verification of the debt or of a judgment to the consumer in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42; 

 

I take that to mean they can resend the verification  information they already gave him. Stuff like this never goes anywhere in court, especially with a JDB who has been sued numerous times for this in the past, and finally desisgned a bullet proof letter. The judge will just look at him and say "exactly what is it they didn't tell you that you need to know?"

 

No, I am not shifting the burden of disputing to the debt collector.  Notice that I said “timely DV request”.  It is most certainly the responsibility of the consumer to send a dispute and validation request within the required amount of time.  However, the burden of providing that verification in order to continue collection efforts is on the debt collector.

 

You are assuming a “copy” means a copy of the same dunning letter containing the name of the creditor and amount of the debt.  YET, you still have not explained why that would be necessary if the first letter already verified the debt.  Why would Congress require debt collectors to cease collection efforts until it merely resends the same letter it already sent?  That makes no sense.  According to you, 1692g(b) and 1006.38(d)(2) are meaningless.  
 

The regulation you cited says “Sends a copy either of verification of the debt”.  The fact that verification is still required to be sent means that the debt has not yet been verified.  It shows that the required notice containing the name of the creditor and amount of the debt in the first letter is NOT considered to be verification.  If the first letter did not verify it, a copy of that same letter could not verify it.  
 

I have not implied that one should send a DV request in order to try to come up with an FDCPA violation.  For some people, sending a DV means buying time to get some money.  For others it means making sure the debt collector or JDB is correct about the balance before they pay.  You may be willing to accept “you owe this amount because we say so”, but others may need a little more than that before paying thousands of dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate both sides sharing their input.

I have until Nov 28th to DV and I've been voraciously reading as much credit stuff as I can. I found some interesting information through BBB where consumers complained about LVNV.

I did find one where LVNV stated they approved granting "hardship" to a consumer and "temporarily suspended collecting efforts" (something to that effect)

I'm curious what others think about me asking for that. I live in transitional housing for homeless vets, my only income is VA disability, and I have no assets besides my crappy old 90's truck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bluesie58 said:

 

No, I am not shifting the burden of disputing to the debt collector.  Notice that I said “timely DV request”.  It is most certainly the responsibility of the consumer to send a dispute and validation request within the required amount of time.  However, the burden of providing that verification in order to continue collection efforts is on the debt collector.

 

You are assuming a “copy” means a copy of the same dunning letter containing the name of the creditor and amount of the debt.  YET, you still have not explained why that would be necessary if the first letter already verified the debt.  Why would Congress require debt collectors to cease collection efforts until it merely resends the same letter it already sent?  That makes no sense.  According to you, 1692g(b) and 1006.38(d)(2) are meaningless.  
 

The regulation you cited says “Sends a copy either of verification of the debt”.  The fact that verification is still required to be sent means that the debt has not yet been verified.  It shows that the required notice containing the name of the creditor and amount of the debt in the first letter is NOT considered to be verification.  If the first letter did not verify it, a copy of that same letter could not verify it.  
 

I have not implied that one should send a DV request in order to try to come up with an FDCPA violation.  For some people, sending a DV means buying time to get some money.  For others it means making sure the debt collector or JDB is correct about the balance before they pay.  You may be willing to accept “you owe this amount because we say so”, but others may need a little more than that before paying thousands of dollars.

Verification comes after validation. Verification is nothing more than sending the same information again if it was complete the first time, which it was. Again, tell me what they could send that wasn't in the first notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, hangloose said:

I appreciate both sides sharing their input.

I have until Nov 28th to DV and I've been voraciously reading as much credit stuff as I can. I found some interesting information through BBB where consumers complained about LVNV.

I did find one where LVNV stated they approved granting "hardship" to a consumer and "temporarily suspended collecting efforts" (something to that effect)

I'm curious what others think about me asking for that. I live in transitional housing for homeless vets, my only income is VA disability, and I have no assets besides my crappy old 90's truck.

You're wasting a lot of time on something that is virtually meaningless in court. Validation on a scale of ten is about a minus one; unless they flagrantly failed to give you any information, it is generally useless. Once they sue you, which they can do any time they like, the discovery process replaces validation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, legaleagle2012 said:

Verification comes after validation. Verification is nothing more than sending the same information again if it was complete the first time, which it was. Again, tell me what they could send that wasn't in the first notice.


Obviously, the CFPB does not agree with your opinion that the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt is sufficient to validate or verify a debt.  You should read the new disclosure requirements in initial communications that went into effect 11/02/2021.  They are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

 

Initial communications (or within 5 days of the initial communication) are now required to disclose not only the name of the creditor and amount of the debt, but they must also include an itemization date (defined in the CFR), the amount of the debt on the itemization date, and an itemization of the current amount of the debt reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date.  Now, that could possibly eliminate the need for further verification.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, legaleagle2012 said:

You're wasting a lot of time on something that is virtually meaningless in court. Validation on a scale of ten is about a minus one; unless they flagrantly failed to give you any information, it is generally useless. Once they sue you, which they can do any time they like, the discovery process replaces validation.

I was just stating the timeframe I had left to DV. I think in this case they will indeed send me the same information, and possibly trigger a lawsuit.

What are your thoughts on the other thing I mentioned in regards to asking them for hardship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question still remains as to whether you have a legitimate basis upon which your dispute would be based or if you are simply stalling for time. 

 

The risk of litigation is very much a State-dependent matter...some entities are less prone to sue in certain States because the post-judgment remedies are minimal (ie. no wage garnishment, difficult to attach any sort of asset, etc). 

 

They have no motivation to enter into a payment plan because a defaulted customer has already been shown to be a risk for any manner of payment plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, centex said:

The question still remains as to whether you have a legitimate basis upon which your dispute would be based or if you are simply stalling for time. 

 

The risk of litigation is very much a State-dependent matter...some entities are less prone to sue in certain States because the post-judgment remedies are minimal (ie. no wage garnishment, difficult to attach any sort of asset, etc). 

 

They have no motivation to enter into a payment plan because a defaulted customer has already been shown to be a risk for any manner of payment plans. 

Thanks for your reply. VA disability can't be garnished in this instance, I have no assets other than a crappy 1995 nissan truck, and I live in transitional housing for homeless veterans.

What do you mean by legitimate basis upon which my dispute would be based on? The hardship request? I certainly think so, but I was hoping someone could add in their own thoughts/opinion on it 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2022 at 9:56 AM, Bluesie58 said:


Obviously, the CFPB does not agree with your opinion that the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt is sufficient to validate or verify a debt.  You should read the new disclosure requirements in initial communications that went into effect 11/02/2021.  They are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

 

Initial communications (or within 5 days of the initial communication) are now required to disclose not only the name of the creditor and amount of the debt, but they must also include an itemization date (defined in the CFR), the amount of the debt on the itemization date, and an itemization of the current amount of the debt reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date.  Now, that could possibly eliminate the need for further verification.  

The part I cited is from the current version amended Nov 2021. The itemization date can be the last statement date. I think they gave him all that is required. Anything further can be had in discovery. The itemization info, etc appears to be on page 4 of the letter they sent him.

Edited by legaleagle2012
Link to comment
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.

 Share




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185317
    • Most Online
      2046

    Newest Member
    Froggie
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines