debt validation question in regards to the fdcpa

[sedric1]

So i DV'ed Asset within 30 days of initial contact (1-2 punch style). This included a limited cease and desist. To my knowledge i have not had any phones calls since then. They responded with a printout of the basic details that they have been sending to everyone (name, acct, balance, ssn, etc).

 

This was about a year and a half ago now.

 

Every since then, they have been sending me settlement offers in the mail (saying 'pay 80% or 70%, etc). Is this considered a violation of the fdcpa? As in, no validation received, but continued collection attempts via these settlement letters?

[centex]

If the materials they supplied satisfies the base level established by federal law (remember, the FDCPA has a VERY LOW threshold), then the settlement offers would not be a violation. The broader question is whether you immediately raised a challenge to the veracity of what you received (in other words, sent a very specific dispute that placed the claim in a continuing state of question).

[sedric1]

I guess my response was not specific , but it was immediate. I told them that what they sent me was not considered validation based on fdcpa standards, as I could see the same thing they sent on my credit reports.

 

Is that too broad of a response by me?

[sedric1]

crud.. i was just reading into the fdcpa - validation requirements in this doc are very slim. they basically say you can send the name of the creditor as validation??

 

 

"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."

[centex]

I guess my response was not specific , but it was immediate. I told them that what they sent me was not considered validation based on fdcpa standards, as I could see the same thing they sent on my credit reports.

 

Is that too broad of a response by me?

 

Remember that the FDCPA DOES NOT define what is required. As such, let's consider:

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.

 

That is the basic information. Where most DV's tend to fail (IMO) is:

 

( 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.

 

Generic letters fail to really place the matter into dispute. Specificity is a must to create a material issue of fact (remember, think of it in terms such as you would have to meet for an MSJ). WHY is the information inadequate? If the letter sent by the consumer fails to address that KEY component, then the verification requirement has been satisfied under the plain-language reading of the statute.