[robseattle]

Hello,
Recently, I posted a thread that had a debt validation letter I had sent to all the CA's attached. I was told that I fell under TFC392 which has far greater power than the FTC. Also, how ineffective my letter would be an the information I was askingfor, they weren't required to give me. As it turns out, I appreciate being told that, but was never told what information they are required to give. If ANYONE may have any suggestions on what a good DV letter should look like, I am all ears. Especially one that would encompass TFC392. It is just frustrating, I do realize what appears to be wrong with the DV's, but would give anything to know how to make i right.

[centex]

You were given an answer that addresses the question at hand- specifically that statutes do not speak to what is required. The reality is that every claim and every dispute is enough different that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to proving up a claim. Further, the dispute process is not the discovery phase of litigation.

At its most basic element, they need to demonstrate how they arrived at the number sought in the claim. Period.

Samples of Texas-specific letters also abound. I must have missed where you have posted a draft of what you believed was appropriate and relevant to the Texas Codes. I will only speak for myself, but I can assure you that I don't draft letters for people who I don't know and where I don't know how willing they are to go into a courtroom. My guess is that others feel the same way. Ditto for those instances where the horse has been led to the trough but does not seem willing to drink...

The absolute worst thing to do is send in cookie-cutter bullshit. It HAS to be tailored to your situation.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by robseattle

Hello,
Recently, I posted a thread that had a debt validation letter I had sent to all the CA's attached. I was told that I fell under TFC392 which has far greater power than the FTC. Also, how ineffective my letter would be an the information I was askingfor, they weren't required to give me. As it turns out, I appreciate being told that, but was never told what information they are required to give. If ANYONE may have any suggestions on what a good DV letter should look like, I am all ears. Especially one that would encompass TFC392. It is just frustrating, I do realize what appears to be wrong with the DV's, but would give anything to know how to make i right.

Your best validation letter is the most simple kind.

Dear CA,

Recently I discovered you were reporting a debt on my credit report (or Recently you dunned me for a debt). I do not recall having applied for nor received any credit from you and therefore I dispute this debt. Please validate this debt for me with any and all documents that prove I owe it.

Thank you in advance,

Robseattle

Or

Dear CA,

I dispute the debt you say I owe and am requesting validation.

Thank you.

Robseattle

You must understand that a CA is only required to do what the FDCPA spells out which is:

§ 809. Validation of debts
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor.
Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an
admission of liability by the consumer.
(d) A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection (a).
(e) The sending or delivery of any form or notice which does not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, title V of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or any provision of Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any such provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with debt collection for purposes of this section.

Under the FDCPA all you are entitled to in validation is what is in the FDCPA plus whatever you are entitled to under your state law.

I don't know what TFC392 is. Can you please post it?

Attaching a copy of the FDCPA to this post for your convenience.

[Hedwig]

He's in Texas, I believe, and was trying to use the Texas law (about which I know nothing other than that it exists).

[hannah]

Texas, eh?

Here's a link to Texas Finance Code 392 then.

[centex]

Hannah, don't be leading that boy back to the nonsense that is federal law...Texas law has some teeth for those that use it properly. And to ensure that one has availed themselves of all protections, certain provisions should be clearly outlined...laying that groundwork for the TxDTPA claim that potentially trebles damages far greater than the piss-ant amount under federal law.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by centex

Hannah, don't be leading that boy back to the nonsense that is federal law...Texas law has some teeth for those that use it properly. And to ensure that one has availed themselves of all protections, certain provisions should be clearly outlined...laying that groundwork for the TxDTPA claim that potentially trebles damages far greater than the piss-ant amount under federal law.

Then why don't you tell him how to use it...

[centex]

Originally Posted by hannah

Then why don't you tell him how to use it...

It has been discussed enough that the information is already out there. I won't draft the letters for him and he has not yet put out a draft that addresses his issue...he ain't my client and I'm not going to do his homework for him. He has been led to the trough...

[hannah]

Originally Posted by centex

It has been discussed enough that the information is already out there. I won't draft the letters for him and he has not yet put out a draft that addresses his issue...he ain't my client and I'm not going to do his homework for him. He has been led to the trough...

Come on Centex! Show us your expertise...

[robseattle]

I utilized what was written in § 809. Validation of debts. I received one response, it was an incomplete acct number. As far as "It has been discussed enough that the information is already out there. I won't draft the letters for him and he has not yet put out a draft that addresses his issue...he ain't my client and I'm not going to do his homework for him. He has been led to the trough...", I wasn't asking anyone to do any work for me. In essence, I have to do the work myself, I realize that and respect that. What was sought by me was merely what I can request and what they must (CA) provide. A letter of validation was already sent to all CA's on my CR. I just figured that people on here had a wealth of knowledge, and I know that to be a fact, I have read many posts. On the contrary, I am the one that lacks the knowledge. I was led to believe that utilizing TFC392, that would invariably vanquish many CA claims. As far as TFC392, it was written that it holds weight if used properly. I would really like to alleviate all CA activity on my CR without causing static.

[robseattle]

"TxDTPA claim that potentially trebles damages far greater than the piss-ant amount under federal law." Not sure what that means, could you please explain?

[Pale Rider]

Originally Posted by robseattle

"TxDTPA claim that potentially trebles damages far greater than the piss-ant amount under federal law." Not sure what that means, could you please explain?

Down toward the bottom of TFC 392, there is some wording that goes something like: (I'm paraphrasing and very tired)

"A violation of this chapter is also a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act."

TDTPA, if used properly, can bring triple damages.

[robseattle]

I love that. So, I can put that in there and CA's will falter?