There is one thing I am still unsure of after reading "what is validation", and all of the other posts on validation. Has the 30 day window been formlly defined and backed up by law? This is what I understand. The CA can send you a Dunning letter with mini-miranda. lets say you do nothing about the debt for 3 years or so, never contact the CA, never make a payment. In year 4 (4 years after first Dunning letter), you send first Dispute Letter asking for validation. Is this statement correct for the situation noted above?. The CA MUST validate the debt, mark the account in dispute, stop all collection activity until validation is sent to consumer. (Even though the consumer DID NOT notify the CA that the debt was in dispute within the first 30 days of the intial communication from the CA) I am having trouble with the "intial communication" requirement and i don't think it was clearly answered in another thread I just read "Validation-The Law" or something close to that, or perhaps I just didn't "get it" Or does a consumer always have the right to dispute the debt at any point that the debt is in collection and require the CA to validate/mark in dispute. My understanding is that a consumer always has the right to dispute the debt and the CA/Atty has to fulfill the requirements of the FDCPA, but I keep coming back to the 30 day/intial communication verbage and it throws me for a brain loop. Is the 30 day/intial communication requirement ever used as an affirmative defense in a suit sucessfully? "judge, the consumer never sent any communication that the debt wasn't valid in the first 30 days after we sent our intial communication, so they lose their right to dispute" I haven't found in the FDCPA where the intial communication is defined-is it the first time the comsumer contacts the CA that the debt is in dispute-the CONSUMER's intial communication about dispute? Or the first communication about the debt from the CA? Sorry this is so long. 3day
If you read section (c) it says that the only thing that happens on the 31st day is that the CA has the right to ASSUME that the debt is valid. It even says that no one else, even a COURT can construe that to mean that the debt is valid. ONLY the CA has that right to assume that the debt is valid, and they are only entitiled to that assumption until you advise them of otherwise...
