People are always told to send any validation request to a bill collector certified mail return receipt requested as proof..Well if bill collectors send you letters in the mail telling you you have 30 days to respond or you admit that the debt stated is verified is not true. If they didnt send the letter certifid mail you can claim you never received any such letter.So the 30 day rule does not apply.If you are sued in court they have to prove that you received all letters from them.Why do you think they record all telephone contacts with you?Once you respond and send a validation of debt letter certified mail return receipt requested you just gave the bill collector proof that you received their letters.Unless all letters from bill collectors are sent certified mail its their word against yours.In a court of law you need proof to win not here say.
Even if you don't DV CMRRR, they will have proof they sent their letters. Read Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County. Here's the opinion.
The mahones messed up when they sent a letter asking for validation after the thirty day period past also they should of argued that the bill collector never sent them any verification that the bill collector had the legal right to collect a debt the mahones owed the doctor in question.Just because someone says they are collecting a debt for someone does not mean they have the legal right to contact you without submitting to you some sort of proof they have the legal right to do so.
Also the mailbox rule is a two way street. The mahones could of argued that they did send the bill collector a letter asking for validation in a timely matter and that the bill collector failed to respond.What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
From the opinion, this sums it up: "We conclude the evidence established, without a genu- ine dispute of any material fact, that the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obli- gation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt. Even if it did, however, the Credit Bureau, when it received the June 5, 1996 request, promptly contacted Dr. Bowen's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from Dr. Bowen's office to the Mahons for over two years, and estab- lished that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the Mahons, along with an itemized statement of the account. Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly veri- fied the debt anyway." The whole case looks like a tempest in a teapot. The CA appears to have sent notice of right to dispute and request validation, meeting its FDCPA obligation. The Mahons disputed and requested validation, which the CA obtained from the OC, and sent to them, regardless of whether the request was within 30 days of the initial notice. The debt appeared to be still owed, based on the validation. The Mahons claim they didn't receive the notice, but if that was even the case, it did not appear that that was due to a failure on the part of the CA, and they were in fact sent validation when they requested it. "Once you respond and send a validation of debt letter certified mail return receipt requested you just gave the bill collector proof that you received their letters" Not if you are disputing a credit report TL. If all you have to hang the CA on is a lack of receiving the required notice, then their standard procedures to send such a letter may get them off, particularly if they still respond to your validation request. You might have a better case if they forshadowed the notice (any verbal claim or threat that you don't have any rights that FDCPA says you do, in order to discourage timely consumer disputes), and that would also be use of deception to collect a debt.
Not only that, the CA detailed elaborate procedures for making sure that it was in fact mailed, which are outlined in the ruling cited and worth reading just to see what one could be up against. The Mahons had lived in the same place for decades -- it's pretty obvious from the phrasing of the rulings that both the district court and the appeals court thought the Mahons were lying. Something to keep in mind.
The mahons would of had a better case had they argued they sent a request for validation right in the beginning and never received it.The mailbox rule then would have had to apply to both parties.How many people on this board have stated that they sent the ca a request for validation and never received it.The ca are a bunch of liars also.How many people on this board have stated that they sent ca's all sorts of replies and never get an answer back.Why is it the debtor must send a certified letter return receipt required and the ca's dont have to, it is not fair.
Sometimes, after years, it catches up with them: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/camco.htm The problem with a business built on breaking the law is that you can't stop, and when you are finally caught, you have years of crap to pay for.
