[spinn]

My friend just received a letter from something called Portfolio Recovery Associates out of California.

This is about a five year old or so Cap One acct. This is the first letter received but they are already playing games. They claim my friend did not respond to their previous letter (there was no previous letter) and my friend needs to send some information.

This is clearly a pethetic attempt to get around the 30 day violation, I mean validation, period.

I assume my friend should DV them....correct?

The SOL is tricky because the debt was incurred in Texas but my friend now lives in NY. The Texas SOL is four years and Ny is 5 (I believe) so it could be made to appear to be within Nys SOL.

[neil5623]

I don't see where it would hurt to DV them, referring to the fact that the first letter was never received.

I have received subsequent letters stating that they never got a response to their previous or initial letter. Yes I did receive the first letter. And yes, the Post Office has been known to mis-deliver the mail once in a while.

[roybean]

I would say, "yes" DV them in the normal manner...no long drawn out story...just the basic..."I dispute."

I never give up any extra information...play crazy just like they do with you. I've recieved collection letters that were dated a month or so before I got it in the mail, but I always write on the letter and the envelope what date I recieved it and go from there. Post marks are crucial.

[Enigma]

Dear Sir,

In regards to your first letter regarding the above captioned account, I responded in a timely manner. A copy of my letter dated xx/xx/xx is enclosed for your review.

What goes around comes around.

A slime ball CA claims they sent the first letter, so did you.

You both can rely on case law.

The FDCPA plainly says a DV must be written, does not say they have to have received it.