-> Keeping it brutally simple is not only the key to success, but it prevents your DV from surpassing your collectors attention span. Here's the validation letter from the Spears v. Brennan case; Date (within 30 days of receipt of Dunn) ABC Collections 123 West Street Anytown, USA 12345 Regarding alleged account # 123456789 Cert Mail # xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Sirs, This alleged debt is disputed in it's entirety, and strict proof is demanded immediately! Thanks Regards, You I sincerely hope this puts to rest, once and for all, the silly 8 page (or how ever long it is) Val. Letter in the Letter section. Note that NO work has been done on those in almost 4 years. ...
Thanks, Butch. You know I don't have as much time to hang around here as I used to, but whenever I can I tell people to keep it simple. This is the reason I think we shouldn't keep reviving all the old threads. Information is updated, the laws change, reactions to what we do changes. PS--for those of us who are "language cranks," you should use its instead of it's in the letter. It's is a contraction of it is. If substituting it is works, use it's with the apostrophe. If not, use its, which is the possessive form of it. I don't mean this to criticize anyone, but in working with people who want to become writers, I find this one of the most common mistakes and I meant it as a grammar lesson, nothing more. I certainly don't mean it as a slam at Butch. Butch is one of the most knowledgeable posters here. He's been around longer than anyone else at this point, I wager. So heed his advice and you'll do well!!!
No problem, Butch! Maybe I should start a thread on grammar lessons. Since I'm in school and see other people's writings (we have to work in teams) I sometimes wonder what in the world schools are teaching. OK, here's lesson number two. probably my second biggest pet peeve. An apostrophe does NOT make a work plural. It makes a word posssessive. So, if you want to talk about all of the dogs in the world, you'd say exactly that--there are millions of dogs in the world, NOT millions of dog's in the world. Now, if you want to wonder where the collar for the dog is, you'd look for the dog's collar, since the collar belongs to the dog. OK, just another rant. I'm avoiding writing a paper!!!
By the way, now that I just told you an apostrophe makes a word possessive, probably the only exception is its. As I said before, it's is a contraction for it is. Confusing language we have, isn't it?
Trying to remember the rule - is it that pronouns have a posessive form, but nouns need the apostrophe to designate possessive? That was a longggg time ago.
I think so. It may be a long time, and you may not be able to recite the rule, but you'll always know the error when you see it!! Hi breeze, haven't seen you in a while. (Of course, I'm not here much anymore).
Butch is right in his validation letter. I think Butch, whoever he is, has covered it pretty well. He is saying exactly the same thing I am saying which is KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.
Butch is an old sage, young grasshoppa, lol. Seriously, he's written the book so to speak on several issues including but not limited to the proper life span of the seven year reporting clock. With that said, you are completely correct regarding the need for brevity in a request for validation. Shorter the better, it's not a brief.
I don't know what you are referring to with that comment. Spears attorney in the case was Clifford Shepard of Indianapolis Indiana. Here are the issues in the case as listed by the court. The discussion of that issue follows. That ruling does not address the matter of whether an attorney can specify the amount of his fees claiming them to be reasonable or whether the term "reasonable attorney fees" is a matter which must be decided by trial courts. Be that as it may, the discussion does provide some valuable insights into the proper determination of attorney fees and who is responsible for their payment. According to the Spears court it may not always be the defendant who has to pay them, depending on the wording of the contract between the parties. 2. Whether Brennan’s debt collection notice to Spears complied with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). I'm going to leave out a large portion of the actual discussion of the court for reasons of brevity but the full discussion is available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=app\03260101.ewn&invol=2 The discussion of the 1692(g) issue follows: So here the court is talking about overshadowing more than anything else. The vast majority of the courts discussion deals with whether or not Brennan overshadowed and clearly told us what will not suffice as validation but it did not tell us exactly what validation does consist of. I know of no other court which has ever clearly defined what satisfies the requirements of FDCPA.
My personal DV letter is typically one page, but it's evolved to that length, as I've gotten the opportunity to use it. Two pages if it's an ITS/DV...
An increasingly common CA response to validation requests is starting to be letters saying they cannot "investigate" your "dispute" unless you provide more "details", in effect implying that they can ignore your validation request because YOU didn't send enough information for them to have any obligation to do anything with it. This may be a successor to the earlier validation evading "Chauhdry" approach: "All we have to send you to validate is this irrelevant affidavit, and this letter saying what we think you owe, and see, this court decision says we don't have to do anything else, so you better pay us." As an example, Afni's response as reported by many consumers, is apparently to treat a timely FDCPA validation request as just a "dispute", and possibly an incomplete FACTA "id theft" or reporting claim, for which they demand that the consumer provide "proof" they do NOT owe the alleged debt (never having received a shred of "validation"): "We have received your dispute but we are unable to investigate at this time. You have provided insufficient information to substantiate your claim. We will complete our investigation within 30 days of receipt of the following information: > Specific information you dispute > An explanation of the basis of your dispute > All supporting documentation to substantiate your claim. Examples may include but is not limited to, photocopy of your driver's license, the identification page of your passport, proof of residency at time of service, receipts, etc. > A valid phone number to contact you. Please call our office to resolve this matter..."
I wonder what part of "I dispute this debt in its entirety" they don't understand? I guess the only appropriate answer to that response would be an AG complaint, FTC complaint, and an intent to sue. It could just be a matter of speaking their language. I'm guessing that most people would just rather send the money and forget about it and that's what they are are banking on...literally.
That seems to be what gets them to back off. Several consumers have reported that in response to AG complaints, they agreed to "close" the account, but still insisted to the AG that they had been dunning the "correct" person, without ever providing any validation to either the consumer or the AG. They may be trying to legally cover themselves against claims they "wilfully" dunned or pulled reports on the wrong consumer, even when they may be sending their letters to anyone with a similar name, without even checking SSNs. Never admit anything. It must be working for them, or they wouldn't be doing it. Similar reply letters from a couple other debt collectors have been reported to both not include any validation, but to state that if the consumer DID NOT provide proof of their "dispute" within 30 days, the CA would assume the debt was valid. Again, an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the consumer, while still providing NO validation. Compared to the "30 days to send proof of dispute or we assume its valid", or the "Chauhdry" reply, which both become deception and continued collection without validation, and in writing, if the consumer doesn't fall for it, the Afni reply appears to try to maintain a defensible ambiguity as to whether they are continuing collection or not, allowing them to leave the consumer feeling pressured to either pay or jump thru hoops at their direction, while being able to deny any intent to collect if challenged. They even helpfully and "honestly" claim they cannot send validation at this time, even as they ask for more information for the purposes of collecting a debt. Feeling pressured to either pay or mount a defense, IS continued collection, as well as deception for implying the burden of proof is on the consumer, regardless of the literal words used.
