Is there any limit of time that a CA has to respond to validation. I got the first letter of collection the first part of February. I DV'd. The CA received my request for validation on 2/26/07. I sent second letter and the CA sent me identical correspondence dated Feb 28 and Mar 18 that they were referring my request to the OC. On April 12, 2007, I wrote the CA, and the CRA's. I told the CA that if they couldn't validate the account, it had to be removed. I send all correspondence to CRA's and told them to remove tradeline. Now, the CA sends validation of debt from the OC April 30, 2007. Is that acceptable...I mean in the legal sense?
A CA is only required to cease collection until the debt has been validated. If they are reporting to the CRA then it must be labled under dispute. A CA is not required to validate the debt in any certain time frame, unless you reside in TX then they must mail you a letter showing they need more time, and that letter must be mailed within 30 days.
No it is not acceptable. Send another DV, stronger, possibly even an ITS letter. How old is the debt? Is the CA legally required by your state to have a collectors bond and license? Do they have one? How much is their demand?
It is acceptable, maybe not to the debtor, but in a legal sense, as long as they ceased collections, and marked the account disputed, they have done everything FDCPA requires them to do. They have mailed validation to the debtor, is the validation everything you requested?
Come on now, let's be real people! We all know the chances a CA or JDB sent real validation is one in a million...well, maybe one in a half million... lol! Let me guess: they sent a piece of paper with a name, account name and number, inflated account balance, and a few dates?
Although the FDCPA doesn't set forth a timeframe, authority on the subject has prescribed 90 days as being a reasonable amount of time to provide proper validation. I haven't cited to the seminal case in a while but, it is used frequently as the need arises.
My favorite case was where the consumer sued for the CA using false and misleading representations by not providing validation, when the validation notice states that they *WILL* provide validation. The consumer won. Always another good addition to a suit of a CA which chooses to fade into the sunset.
