Long Winded or.....Short and Sweet DV Letters?

[DazedNConfused]

I have been reading sample DV letters on several sites. Some seem to favor..."I dispute this debt, and request validation under the FDCPA." letter while others prefer very detailed long winded drafts. Some opinions are that the long winded letters aren't necessary and most of the info asked for in them, the CA isn't obligated to supply.

 

I would appreciate any thoughts......

[Stryker]

I have been reading sample DV letters on several sites. Some seem to favor..."I dispute this debt, and request validation under the FDCPA." letter while others prefer very detailed long winded drafts. Some opinions are that the long winded letters aren't necessary and most of the info asked for in them, the CA isn't obligated to supply.

 

I would appreciate any thoughts......

 

Short and sweet.

[HereKittyKitty]

The majority of the long-winded DVs ask for information the CA is not required to provide.

 

I'm a fan of shorter DVs, and the results I've gotten from them are clear.

[RFoster130]

Short is best. Here is what I use:

 

 

 

Dear SCUM CA,

 

On XXXXX XX, 200X I received your letter stating I owe you a debt. I have never done business with you, nor do I owe you anything. I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

 

I also would like to make it known that it is inconvenient for you to call me at any number you may have obtained. All further correspondence may be done at the address I have listed on this letter.

 

Sincerely,

 

ME

[centex]

The grocery list/kitchen sink letter is useless. However, I am very much a proponent of specificity. This goes to both the letters sent to the third party as well as a bonding agent (as applicable). Much of that is because the Texas statutes also require sufficient notice to cure in order to start the 60 day clock ticking on a TxDTPA claim (which is where the unlimited trebling of damages comes into play).

 

I'd much rather kill something with the first unloading of a cannon than I would have to keep reloading and firing again with a pellet gun...there is a reason stuff goes away inside of a couple of weeks (if not sooner).

[game_on]

I like short and direct.

[LiftnW8z]

Get to the point with it. They are to know the law and what is required, so there's no point repeating it to them. And don't use the validation forms that some people use. Again, not necessary as they are to be knowledgeable as to what validation requires.

 

My DV's, with addressing, date, certified mail notations, and formatting to make it look somewhat professional, NEVER take more than a page. Sans formatting, it'd be right at about a half page easy.

[sara2007]

I have made mine short and to the point with the exception of the one I'm drafting now. My reason for being more specific in it is so that I have good documentation so that if/when I have to sue them I have good documentation of EXACTLY what I requested. I also have 4 documented violations of federal law and one violation (possibly more) of state law because of how they are reporting to the CRAs. I am not listing those however, just asking for certain information to see if they hang themselves more.

[DazedNConfused]

My problem with the S&S letter is that CA like to play games. We know they know what they are supposed to provide for validation....yet they rarely if ever validate properly.

Just stating that you are disputing the debt and want verification could leave things open for the CA to later say...."you never asked for that."

[LiftnW8z]

It's a catch 22 though. If they know the law and don't validate properly, then you've sort of got them in a sling too...that they did not do their job. Is that not true?

[MB82x]

*deleted for a reason* (posted something I shouldn't have, now that I think of it)

Edited May 19, 2008 by MB82x

[Jen23514]

I used to advocate the S&S letter. Mine used to be about 5 sentences long.

 

Now, I agree with Centex, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIVE IN A STATE THAT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

The grocery list/kitchen sink letter is useless. However, I am very much a proponent of specificity. This goes to both the letters sent to the third party as well as a bonding agent (as applicable). Much of that is because the Texas statutes also require sufficient notice to cure in order to start the 60 day clock ticking on a TxDTPA claim (which is where the unlimited trebling of damages comes into play).

 

I'd much rather kill something with the first unloading of a cannon than I would have to keep reloading and firing again with a pellet gun...there is a reason stuff goes away inside of a couple of weeks (if not sooner).

[centex]

It's a catch 22 though. If they know the law and don't validate properly, then you've sort of got them in a sling too...that they did not do their job. Is that not true?

 

There is no catch-22. The FDCPA does not speak to what is required. Strictly speaking, at its most basic element, the FDCPA requires the previous creditor and the amount being sought. There is not even caselaw controlling at the national level that addresses what might be required, with the primary reason (IMO) being that every case is different and as such, there IS no one-size-fits-all approach to what documentation is sufficient to prove up a debt.

 

The cynical side in me also suggests and opines that a majority of people, even when confronted with clear and convincing evidence still will look for ways to avoid payment. The Courts likely tend to share that opinion. In such a scenario, it becomes far easier to let the other party sue to debtor and then simply rule from the bench on whether the documentation is sufficient as it pertains to that case...

 

Oh, and based on this morning's USA Today, look for litigation to start commencing far earlier than in the past...which comes back to building your defenses early, and that will require some level of specificity in the dispute.

[Jen23514]

The cynical side in me also suggests and opines that a majority of people, even when confronted with clear and convincing evidence still will look for ways to avoid payment. The Courts likely tend to share that opinion. In such a scenario, it becomes far easier to let the other party sue to debtor and then simply rule from the bench on whether the documentation is sufficient as it pertains to that case...

 

there has been quite a few threads around here when someone asks, "is this validation?" my response has been, "do you think that is enough that a judge would think so or can you defend why that is NOT proper validation?"

[LiftnW8z]

It's a catch 22 though. If they know the law and don't validate properly, then you've sort of got them in a sling too...that they did not do their job. Is that not true?

 

There is no catch-22. The FDCPA does not speak to what is required. Strictly speaking, at its most basic element, the FDCPA requires the previous creditor and the amount being sought. There is not even caselaw controlling at the national level that addresses what might be required, with the primary reason (IMO) being that every case is different and as such, there IS no one-size-fits-all approach to what documentation is sufficient to prove up a debt.

 

The cynical side in me also suggests and opines that a majority of people, even when confronted with clear and convincing evidence still will look for ways to avoid payment. The Courts likely tend to share that opinion. In such a scenario, it becomes far easier to let the other party sue to debtor and then simply rule from the bench on whether the documentation is sufficient as it pertains to that case...

 

Oh, and based on this morning's USA Today, look for litigation to start commencing far earlier than in the past...which comes back to building your defenses early, and that will require some level of specificity in the dispute.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I am not super well read on case law so I was not aware of that. I was under the (apparently false) presumption that the FDCPA established a more substantial set of regs for validation and verification of debt.

 

My letters are personal as opposed to cookie-cutter anyhow, but I still keep it short and to the point.

[Jen23514]

Thanks for clearing that up. I am not super well read on case law so I was not aware of that. I was under the (apparently false) presumption that the FDCPA established a more substantial set of regs for validation and verification of debt.

 

My letters are personal as opposed to cookie-cutter anyhow, but I still keep it short and to the point.

 

Before sending a DV, IMO everyone should read the FDCPA. It's not that long and is well worth it.

[JohnP]

Depends on the situation. I have a new insert for an alleged old debt from 2004. They never sent me a letter prior to inserting on my EQ, so I sent them a larger letter.

 

For the other ones that were on my reports I sent a nice and short DV:

 

Collection Agency

123 CA Street

City, ST, ZIP

 

Sent via USPS Certified Mail: 1234 5678 9101 1213

Re: Account # 1234XXX

 

Month, Day, Year

 

 

Dear Collection Agency,

 

I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Name

[centex]

Depends on the situation. I have a new insert for an alleged old debt from 2004. They never sent me a letter prior to inserting on my EQ, so I sent them a larger letter.

 

For the other ones that were on my reports I sent a nice and short DV:

 

Collection Agency

123 CA Street

City, ST, ZIP

 

Sent via USPS Certified Mail: 1234 5678 9101 1213

Re: Account # 1234XXX

 

Month, Day, Year

 

 

Dear Collection Agency,

 

I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Name

 

 

That is a good way to end up with a fraud alert as well as a response associated with the fraud affidavit. It infers fraud was associated with the balance. Specificity will go much further towards achieving meaningful resolution...

[LiftnW8z]

There's a fine line between keeping to the point and creating an additional problem. I would agree with centex about the fraud alert. Keeping on point and specific without extensive babbling on like some cut and paste letters do is worthwhile - JMHO.

[DazedNConfused]

I have just read the section on debt validation in the FDCPA. It is my understanding that it doesn't specifically state what constitutes validating the debt. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here......

Providing the name/address of OC and amount of debt doesn't prove that it is your debt.

So.......in sending a DV letter we can ask for whatever we want but that doesn't mean the CA is obligated to provide it.

As with many things....there doesn't seem to be a simple answer to my original question.

[HereKittyKitty]

I have just read the section on debt validation in the FDCPA. It is my understanding that it doesn't specifically state what constitutes validating the debt. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here......

You're not.

 

The basic guideline many of us suggest is this: Would their "proof" satisfy a judge that the acct is yours and that what's owed is what they SAY is owed?

[JohnP]

Depends on the situation. I have a new insert for an alleged old debt from 2004. They never sent me a letter prior to inserting on my EQ, so I sent them a larger letter.

 

For the other ones that were on my reports I sent a nice and short DV:

 

Collection Agency

123 CA Street

City, ST, ZIP

 

Sent via USPS Certified Mail: 1234 5678 9101 1213

Re: Account # 1234XXX

 

Month, Day, Year

 

 

Dear Collection Agency,

 

I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Name

 

 

That is a good way to end up with a fraud alert as well as a response associated with the fraud affidavit. It infers fraud was associated with the balance. Specificity will go much further towards achieving meaningful resolution...

 

Hmm, out of the 4 that I sent that to, none resulted in a FA, I sent that to the CAs and a separate dispute to the CRAs.

 

If I ever have to end up using that scenario again I'll look at revising the letter. Thanks for the tip.

Edited May 20, 2008 by JohnP

[jack1212]

letter siggy below

 

jack1212

[Jen23514]

ttt

[whatsanenigma]

That seems to be a really good point about how if you just ask "for validation", the CA can send you any old garbage they want. But obviously, there is no clear answer to what "validation" is-you have to use your own judgement about what a court would think of it.

 

Is there a "stock phrase" of some kind that can be put into a DV letter that will tell them you want something legit (whatever it happens to be) and you won't accept garbage, but is also professional and polite?

 

Sorry if this has been answered and I missed it. There are so many threads on this topic, it's hard to keep up with them all.