Better Explanation of the 1-2 punch..Please

[keam7095]

I've read through the Newbie Threads..and I think I have an understanding of the 1-2 technique. But could someone explain it better?

[keam7095]

do the bump

[radi8]

The FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) states that if a consumer (you) demands validation of a debt within 30 days of the first communication from the collector,

the collector must STOP all collection activity until such validation is sent.

 

That means until the collector sends you validation, they cannot call you, write you or report to the CRA's.

 

SO.... after the CA has received your validation letter, confirmed by CMRRR ( certified mail, return recipt requested)

You send a dispute regarding that tradeline to the CRA's.

 

The CRA's are under a 30-day deadline to verify the account.

But remember that the Collector cannot respond to the CRA's request for verification until AFTER they validate to you.

 

tick tick tick ......

 

Often that 30-days passes without validation being sent.

-- meaning the Collector could not legally respond to the CRA- forcing the CRA to delete the account for "no response".

 

The "catch" is, the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you.

 

However, there are more than a few that have had success even after that 30-day window has passed.

 

Doesn't work with OC's, as they are not bound by the FDCPA, or it's requirement to cease collections.

 

 

Part II of this- is the requirement to mark the account as "disputed" if it already exists on your report.

 

If the CA has already reported the collection, and you demand validation, the CA is required to inform the CRA of the dispute.

Usually, the CA doesnt' bother, giving you another violation for later use.

 

 

So-

Within 30 days of the initial contact, you send the collector a validation demand.

When they receive it, you send the CRA a dispute for that account.

 

Either the CA follows the law, and does not reply to the CRA- forcing deletion,

 

or

 

the CA verifies to the CRA, giving you violation #1.

They don't mark the account as "disputed"- violation #2.

 

If the CA does provide you with proper validation, they can then respond to the CRA's verification request without violation.

But remember, they have that 30-day clock ticking.

 

 

And think first!

Poking the lion with a stick sometimes irritates the lion.....

If you are not past the SOL for lawsuits, and you are not able to quickly settle the account if necessary- or prove that it is not yours-

you may find validation attached to a sumons. Not fun.

 

 

 

Radi8

[chopper180]

Thanks for explaining that. For me, having just declared Ch 7, I should just dispute directly with the CRA right? I mean, there wouldn't be any point in contacting the CA right?

[havegood]

The "catch" is, the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you.

 

Great post by the way, really helps me. Just one question - say I have something that is three or four years old, and I have never heard from a CA about it, or at least not in a long time. Can I still do this, or am I just blowing smoke up their butt since it is well past 30 days?

[realitycheck]

The "catch" is, the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you.

 

Great post by the way, really helps me. Just one question - say I have something that is three or four years old, and I have never heard from a CA about it, or at least not in a long time. Can I still do this, or am I just blowing smoke up their butt since it is well past 30 days?

 

It seems like you would then have the SOL to fall back on.

 

RC

[realitycheck]

Thanks for explaining that. For me, having just declared Ch 7, I should just dispute directly with the CRA right? I mean, there wouldn't be any point in contacting the CA right?

 

Dispute it with the CRA. If the CA knows they aren't going to get any money anyway, they might not bother disputing the dispute, and it will fall off. This happened with me on two OCs that were reporting my balances as unpaid collections, even though they were included in my BK.

 

RC

[keam7095]

Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You

 

That was a great explanation..now I understand it very clearly.

[verbeek98]

and this works just as well for a paid collection right???

[De]

Thanks--very helpful. I am within the SOL--3 years--but I figure if I have to go BK later at some point--I will. This is the biggest account I have, so I guess it will kind of set the tone.

[Kimber]

I have been advised on this forum to use this method. NOTHING on my report is within 30 days. Little of it is within 2 years.

 

I have a few old collections mentioned on my reports.

 

Some of them are paid. Should I do this with those?

 

Some, I KNOW I paid but are marked unpaid.

 

Others, I know NOTHING about, and never received ANY information about.

 

So - Do I do the 1 2 punch with this, or know?

 

And what about Charge Offs?

 

I am just getting so confused. I guess I don't understand well enough yet, because I read something, then I read something else, and I feel like they contradict. Or maybe I am just confused;) Well, DEFINITELY I am confused. And beating myself up for not paying closer attention while this was going on!

 

Kimberly

[coyotesfan]

i need some help with charge offs please.

[karmakameleon]

And think first!

Poking the lion with a stick sometimes irritates the lion.....

If you are not past the SOL for lawsuits, and you are not able to quickly settle the account if necessary- or prove that it is not yours-

you may find validation attached to a sumons. Not fun.

 

 

 

Radi8

 

 

Hmmm... I'm going after 3 accounts from 2 CA's. I could settle them if I needed to, but both are well within SOL. Is the summons actually a very real threat if each account is under $250? Is there a preferred way to dv that might lessen the chances of legal entanglement?

[sushichef40]

subscr

[zerodown]

Part II of this- is the requirement to mark the account as "disputed" if it already exists on your report.

Radi8

Just being a noodge but it might be helpful to point out this derives from the FCRA rather than the FDCPA.

 

The CRA's are under a 30-day deadline to verify the account. But remember that the Collector cannot respond to the CRA's request for verification until AFTER they validate to you.

There is no actual timeframe specified for the CA to respond. A lot of CB'ers assume 30 days is a reasonable amount of time but it is an issue that might have to be argued in court if it went that far. Of course, if the CA doesn't continue collection activities - they don't have to validate at all.

 

The "catch" is, the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you.

 

However, there are more than a few that have had success even after that 30-day window has passed.

 

Used to be when I pointed this out, people jumped down my throat :wink: . However, since the CA's are either too dumb or too cautious, might as well take advantage of it, says I.

 

To all those asking about accounts that are pretty old, one tactic I used was to play dumb. It's based on that the most CA's I've seen send out a first notice that includes your rights. Subsequent notices don't. So I called stating I just saw this on my CR, what is it, can you please send me some info on it. They send out a notice that includes your rights (just to cover their arses.) Walla! If they had noticed you before then there was no legal requirement for them to do it again. But here you now have the "first" notice you ever received as proven by the included notice of your right to dispute w/in 30 days. If you didn't still have that right - why included it?

 

0

[Idarrau]

 

I just wanted to say thanks for this info. I got a collection from some clowns yesterday. I of course tossed it in the 'pile'. But after reading your post, I read it over and sure enough, it did have my 30 day mini miranda on it..... now what to do with it!

[LKH]

The "catch" is' date=' the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you.

 

However, there are more than a few that have had success even after that 30-day window has passed.[/quote']

 

Used to be when I pointed this out, people jumped down my throat :wink: . However, since the CA's are either too dumb or too cautious, might as well take advantage of it, says I.

 

 

Nowhere in the FDCPA does it say a consumer must send a validation within 30 days. What it says, and this is all it says, is that if a consumer does not request validation within the initial 30 day period, that a ca may consider the debt to be due and owing. It doesn't say a consumer can never ever send a dv letter again nor does it say that if a ca receives it after the initial 30 day period that they don't have to validate.

[creditech]

FDCPA section 809 ©

 

"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."

 

Since a consumers liability is determined by a debts validity, how can a consumer dispute the debt without first determining it's validity? I just DV'd Dillards on a debt way past the 30 day window and now have in writing an agreement to delete the debt and remove the negative tradeline from all 3 CRA's.

[zerodown]

What it says, and this is all it says, is that if a consumer does not request validation within the initial 30 day period, that a ca may consider the debt to be due and owing.

 

Then I guess "( 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. " is just meaningless filler .

 

RMA tried to pull this on me and I made them eat it because they couldn't even show they had my correct address to send it to (on top of multiple other violations.)

 

Someday, I know I'm talking fiction here, some CA will actually read and understand all the laws and regulations. Until then...

 

0

[SassyinAz]

It's not meaningless filler, it means that a CA can carry on with their happy collection ways in the meantime, otherwise with no response from a consumer, they could do nothing at all and would be in CA-limbo.

 

Sassy

[Rosco]

just subscribing... :roll:

[JeepChick]

found this while searching, posted on it to find it again.

[snarf]

"SO.... after the CA has received your validation letter, confirmed by CMRRR ( certified mail, return recipt requested)

You send a dispute regarding that tradeline to the CRA's.

 

tick tick tick ......

 

"The "catch" is, the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you."

 

Please excuse me if this is clear and i dont see it. I'm a little confused reading this post. It doesnt make sense to me. i must be slow.

reguarding the phrase, 'the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you' I thought you would have already sent a validation letter? why would they be contacting you? is there a separate step, a "validation demand" thats different than a validation letter? I've done a search for a validation demand and nothing comes up.

 

thanks

Edited January 19, 2005 by snarf

[HelloKitty]

You have 30 days from the initial contact by a CA where your dispute requires them to cease collecting (and reporting) reporting is considered a collection activity in this framework. They must cease collecting until they validate the debt.

 

If you dispute with the CRA's after you received confirmation of delivery of your DV, the CA can not validate your dispute with the CRA's.

 

So there are two steps.

 

1. Send a DV to the CA w/in 30 days of initial notice

 

2. Dispute with CRA's once your DV was received.

 

The CA can't respond to your dispute with the CRA's because they must cease collecting until they validate, so the account should be deleted by the CRA's. The CA can't reply to the CRA without breaking the law.

 

Please excuse me if this is clear and i dont see it. I'm a little confused reading this post. It doesnt make sense to me. i must be slow.

reguarding the phrase, 'the validation demand must be sent to the collector within 30 days of the first time they contact you' I thought you would have already sent a validation letter? why would they be contacting you? is there a separate step, a "validation demand" thats different than a validation letter? I've done a search for a validation demand and nothing come

 

In one instance, I actually dealt with a law abiding, decent CA who sent me a letter before they started reporting. I had no idea about the account. So, they sent me the initial letter, I DV'd them (I went back to the post office that day to send it because I just joined CB, and was really excited, LOL) They sent me an outdated billing statement, I sent them the check that cleared from the OC and they thanked me, said case closed and it never showed up on my CRs.

 

For many people the letter is the first they hear about a collection.

[gpclan]

Boy, the veterans were right on when they said, "keep reading, reading and reading"

 

The light bulb just went off reading this post! Now I get it!

 

I was searching for something else and came across this thread. Glad I did!

 

Thanks!

 

gpclan