Cr Coll VOD vs CA Verification:Which Rules?

abarn · 11-21-2007, 09:14 AM

I sent VOD letters to credit collectors who were clearly unable to validate debt. These are the lowest of the low (ie Palisades, New Horizons, NCO). I also disputed with CRAs simultaneously. Collectors never answered my VOD. TransUnion was quick to delete as "unverified." But Experian states debt was verified and did not remove, therefore. I will send Experian proof that TransUnion deleted and ask them to respond in kind. Beyond that, any further impactful suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Enigma · 11-21-2007, 09:27 AM

Not to be blunt, but Exp does not care what TU did.

If Exp said it was verified, then ask for procedures from Exp. I would also write to the CA's advising them if they verified with Exp and they cannot/refuse to verify with you then you may have a cause of action for violations of the FDCPA.

abarn · 11-21-2007, 10:10 AM

Thx mch. Awesome suggestion. BTW, would also greatly appreciate your outlook on this: First VOD was sent to CA (RM/RRR) long after 30-day period following CA's first collection letter may have (or not) been received that included Maranda Right notice. Do you think position that CA is unable to prove when that proper notice was delivered and, therefore, when 30-day period began (no RM/RRR receipt), is as solid a position as when first VOD is definitely generated to CA within 30 days of first collection letter?

Enigma · 11-21-2007, 10:34 AM

I don't full understand your question.

You sent a VOD letter after the initial letter from the CA was received and it was after the initial thirty day period and it was sent sans CMRRR?

abarn · 11-21-2007, 11:19 AM

Sorry, I'll clarify. CA probably sent initial paper collection letter with proper 30-day notice, but it was so long ago I don't have any record of it. If they did, I didn't respond. Far beyond probable 30-day window ("if we don't hear from you in 30 days ... we will assume the debt to be valid") I sent VOD to CA via CMRRR. VOD stated: "You are hereby advised that, to date, I have received no proof that I owe your company this debt. As a result, the 30-day period in which I have a right to request that this debt be validated, as outlined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, has never commenced."

I am hoping that when actual 30-day window was isn't a serious sticky point because CA can't prove if/when they sent first collection letter/notice and/or when consumer received same because they probably didn't send CMRRR What do you think?

apexcrsrvc · 11-21-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abarn

Sorry, I'll clarify. CA probably sent initial paper collection letter with proper 30-day notice, but it was so long ago I don't have any record of it. If they did, I didn't respond. Far beyond probable 30-day window ("if we don't hear from you in 30 days ... we will assume the debt to be valid") I sent VOD to CA via CMRRR. VOD stated: "You are hereby advised that, to date, I have received no proof that I owe your company this debt. As a result, the 30-day period in which I have a right to request that this debt be validated, as outlined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, has never commenced."

I am hoping that when actual 30-day window was isn't a serious sticky point because CA can't prove if/when they sent first collection letter/notice and/or when consumer received same because they probably didn't send CMRRR What do you think?

The CA will likely have record of the initial communication. As a business, it is presumed you recieved their correspondence once it is mailed. I don't think you have much footing there.

A better approach is to see whether the CA denoted the tradeline on your report as being in dispute. This is not contingent upon you responding within 30 days. They must do it.

abarn · 11-21-2007, 04:08 PM

Thx for info. When you state "they must do it," do you mean the CA must respond to an all-encompassing validation request generated by a consumer (including copies of statements, etc.) that occurs simultaneously with the CRA dispute? Again, thx so much!

Enigma · 11-21-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abarn

Thx for info. When you state "they must do it," do you mean the CA must respond to an all-encompassing validation request generated by a consumer (including copies of statements, etc.) that occurs simultaneously with the CRA dispute? Again, thx so much!

There is not one all encompassing standard. It all depends on what your state of residence is, what federal circuit you are in, etc.

A sample standard would be a letter on the OC's or JDB's letter head detailing the amount of the debt, your name, address, etc. That documentation alone may or may not stand up in court.

However, they verified with Exp., so they must verify with you, if not, you **may** have a violation and the desired out come will depend on how far you want to go with it.

One caveat, you will notice that TU deleted, it may be that TU **actually** did an investigation and therefore properly deleted the account. Exp. on the other hand, tends to do what Exp. wants to do.

apexcrsrvc · 11-21-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abarn

Thx for info. When you state "they must do it," do you mean the CA must respond to an all-encompassing validation request generated by a consumer (including copies of statements, etc.) that occurs simultaneously with the CRA dispute? Again, thx so much!

No, I mean to say by "they must do it" that they must denote the tradeline as being in dispute. The same requirement is imposed whether you communicate directly with the furnisher or not. That is to say, a request for re-investigation through the credit reporting agencies is enough to invoke this requirement.

In short, you dispute through them or the credit reporting agencies, they fail to mark, you then have both a FDCPA violation (explicit) and a FCRA violation (implied under 1681s-2b).