Hey all, I realize I have this same exact question in my last post, but I am trying to get this taken care of TODAY if the CA handling my account has violated the FCRA. Here was my question: Ok, sorry that I keep adding to this post, but Josh (or anyone), maybe you could provide some feedback on this. So, I disputed this factoring Account LVNV Funding at Transunion's website on August 1, 2012. The next day, I went to the Post Office and sent a DV letter to LVNV Funding. Part of the letter explicitly states, "...during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with my legal counsel. This includes any information to a crredit reporting repository that could be innaccurate or invalidated or verifying an account as accurate when in fact there is no provided proof that it is." Since the balance BEFORE dispute was $619, and it is now $724, haven't they done something wrong here? I have heard NOTHING from LVNV. I did receive a return receipt on my certified letter. They received it on August 7, 2012. If I look at the updated TU credit report, it says that it was updated on 08/16/2012. Aren't they supposed to validate with me before validating with TU? Any thoughts? ****************************************************** Again, sorry for the double post, but I am trying to get this taken care of ASAP
Remember, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. If you want actual legal advice, talk to your lawyer. Now, you sent your DV letter on 8/2 and they received it on 8/7. Did you send your DV letter within the 30-day time period after they first contacted you regarding the debt? Remember, they're not required to respond to your DV at all, but they do need to cease collection activities until they respond appropriately (according to the FDCPA). The definition of "collection activity" is somewhat of a gray area though, but many people consider reporting anything to the CRAs as continued collection activity. What was the actual result of the TU dispute? Did they just verify the information and update the amount due?
This debt has been on my CR for awhile. I don't remember the last time (or if they ever did) they contacted me regarding the debt. I simply pulled my TU, saw the debt, and sent my DV to the CA for them to validate, however, they did receive my DV on Aug 7, according to my return receipt. Yes, the result of the TU dispute was just verification of the info and an update of the amount due. I was just curious because I thought I had heard that if I send a DV letter, they are REQUIRED to respond to me. This makes sense, because if I have a debt that--lets say-- is 3 years old, I might not remember what it is anymore, especially if it has been to 3+ different Collection Agencies already. Also, it was my understanding that if you dispute with TU and request a DV at the same time, they must respond to your DV before validating with TU? I posted something on the forums before, and got some advice like this. I will try and dig up the post. **edit** Ok, so I dug up the post, and cannot post links yet But, here is what you actually wrote in a post to me on 08/03 Josh. In response to my question, "what is the advantage to disputing with the CRA and sending a DV at the same time.": "The whole idea is that the CA needs to appropriately respond to your DV letter before they can continue collection activity. Verifying your debt with the CRAs could be considered collection activity, so if they do that before responding to your DV request then you've got them on an FDCPA violation."
Nope, there's nothing that really "requires" them to respond to a DV request. What the FDCPA says (section 809 if I remember correctly) is that they must cease collection activities until they validate the debt. But first, the consumer's DV letter needs to be sent within the 30-day time period after you received notice of the debt. If your first notice of the debt was when you pulled your credit report and saw it years ago, then it sounds to me like you may have missed that 30-day time period. My previous response that you've quoted is based on this same premise, so just keep this in mind as you move forward and decide on your next steps. I recommend reading section 809 of the FDCPA to make sure you really understand how it applies to you.
Ok, here is the distinctions, and as Josh pointed out we're not lawyers. The violation would potentially be an FDCPA violation, for continued collection activity. So here is how you determine if the 'update' is 'activity'. For the update to be activity, it needs to be manually performed, I.e. from the dispute, and not from the automated update proceedures. From your earlier reports look at the date that the account was updated, if it is close, it's more likely that the update was from the automated process. Now, the second hurdle is the timeliness of the dispute, the prohibition on collection activity only kicks in when a dispute is received within 30 days of the initial contact.
The date it was updated on my old report is 07/11/2012. This is the report that I pulled the day I conducted my disputes 08/02/2012. On the new report, it was updated on 08/16/2012, so I definitely think that it wasn't automated. However, I dont think that you could coun't this as within a 30 day window lol. The original account was with MARIN (financial), of which, I have no idea what this is?? And the date opened was 03/19/2008. The SOL in Michigan is 6 years, so no hope of having it resolved in that way anytime soon.
I would wait a bit longer to see if they do respond to your DV request. It's only been 2 weeks since they received it, and a response might help clear up some more details regarding what this debt actually is. Considering that the 30-day window has probably passed, you might get nothing at all though. Have you thought about trying to negotiate a PFD with the collection agency?
