Good question... I dunno what is the right answer. I'll do some investigation and get back to you if I bump into an decent answer. You should email the people at Discover Card as they probably could help you..

I have never been contacted by the CA as they did not have my addy before, so I initiated contact with the CA using a DV after finding the CA on my CR. I am assuming since I am initiating contact this makes my DV timely, though they have been trying to collect for a lot longer than 30 days, they have not ever successfully contacted me using my actual contact information...

The question is "did they send an initial communication out to the last address on file with the original creditor?" If they did, my guess is that by not updating your address you should be held at least least partially liable for not taking steps to mitigate your own damages...that will be their defense anyway..

This post has been edited by.

Jtoast.

: 06 January 2010 - 06:52 PM..

I am not aware of them sending the DV to the last address on file but I have reason to beleive that they have sent documentation out to a much older address. I was unaware of this initial contact as I do not associate with that part of my family any longer and have no idea why they chose to send documentation out to an address I have not resided at since pre 2000 when the debt was not even turned over to them until 2004 w/ 3 or four newer addresses available...

It's not so much the address the OC had on file....but should they have reasonably been expected to know your current address (ie is your correct address on your credit reports, did you have forwarding on your mail, etc)..

Even if they didnt send it they would make a letter appear in court. CA's dont have the same burden of proof as we (the consumers) do when it comes to sending letters, IE sending everything CMRRR..

This why it is SO IMPORTANT that the CA have your correct address. (Side note: this is why disputing names and addresses is 100% ethical. Nothing dirty about it. Old addresses need to come off so a CA does not send a dun to the wrong address. See how this all ties in?).

You may be able to get away with the wording in your DV, though..

"Upon recent review of my CR, I noticed a negative entry by your company. For FDCPA purposes this will be considered first contact.".

Eventually (going to court) the CA will have to validate. This wording/request would atleast show the judge that you attempted to resolve this without cloggin up the courts. A CA that can actually validate should have no problem sending you VOD, even outside of the 30 days, because it is legit. A CA that refuses and stands hard on, "we dont have to. You didnt respond in time." most likely cannot get validation from the OC. Let alone be able to overcome hearsay in the courtroom, and prove a proper chain of custody..

This post has been edited by.

Bobbydebt.

: 06 January 2010 - 07:16 PM..

My address was not correct on my CR until recently I was not even aware that you could update it and dispute old addy's. I have disputed old addy's and added my newest one. The addy' I refered to earlier were the addy's as they show up on my CR. I do not know why, but they chose to send mail to the oldest addy on my CR and even though the newest one on my CR was not the most up to date, I would have known that mail was sent their for me until last year. I also have no forwarding addy at my PO Box..

Should my next response be a reinforcing letter of DV that states that Upon recent review of my CR, I noticed a negative entry by your company. For FDCPA purposes December 31 (DoR of Original DV letter) will be considered first contact?.

I honnestly do not know why they are stalling with this as it is due to fall off sometime between 12-18 mo. and is out of legal SoL..

Is the following an apt response to the situation???.

Upon recent review (12/24/2009) of my credit report, I noticed a negative entry by your company. I immediately contacted your company and requested debt validation of this account. For FDCPA purposes, the date I contacted you for debt validation was the date of first contact, this date was December 31, 2009..

On January 06, 2010, your company reported negative ratings on my Credit Report regarding this alleged account. Your company has failed to validate this debt and mail a copy of validation to me, as are my rights under the FDCPA (15 USC 1692g) 809. Validation of debts (.

..

Violation of the debt validation process as explained under 15 USC 1692g 809. Validation of debts (.

Is subject to civil liability (15 USC 1692k 813. Civil liability) and administrative enforcement (15 USC 1692/ 814. Administrative enforcement)..

The FDCPA 15 USC 1692k 813. Civil liability (a)(2)(A) clearly places your company currently liable for damages of no more than $1000.00; if these damages are found to be "brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment", the court may also include reasonable attorney's fees "in relation to the work expended and costs.".

The FDCPA 15 USC 1692k 813. Civil liability (.

Also states that "In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors€”".

15 USC 1692k 813. Civil liability (.

(1) "any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional".

Thus making any continued breaches of FDCPA policy in accordance of 15 USC 1692g 809. Validation of debts (.

Both increased in "frequency" and "intentional" violations of the FDCPA policies..

Additional to the civil liabilities, the FDCPA (15 USC 1692/ 814. Administrative enforcement (a)) ensures that the Federal Trade Commission will force your companies compliance with the FDCPA (15 USC 1692g) 809. Validation of debts (.

..

I have provided your company with ample time to reply to my request of debt validation and you have failed to provide me with even the courtesy of a response. I am now providing you with the courtesy of responding to your silence with a clear and precise list of your current legal responsibilities and civil liabilities as outlined under the FDCPA..

Since further and intentional violations of the USC 1692g 809. Validation of debts (.

Will likely be perceived as being "brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment", it is recommended that you comply with my legal right to debt validation at this time..

I am otherwise not so inclined to provide payment to your company on the soul basis that you claim I owe you this unsubstantiated sum of monies..

If you cannot validate this debt, you are required to remove the debt from my credit reports. By reporting negative information during the debt validation process on Jan 06, 2010, you are already in violation of FDCPA policies; you must remove all negatively reported information from this period from my credit reports immediately..

As stated in my previous letter, if your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested in the following Declaration, I will require at least 30 days of time investigating this information and during such time all collection activity must cease and desist. Also during this validation period, if your company takes any action that I considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with my legal counsel for suit. This includes any listing of any information to a credit reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated at the time of it's listing..

It would be advisable that you and your client assure that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action..

Best Regards..

Way too wordy..

I am not trying to be rude in any way. Have you read the newbies section of CB? Have you read it three times?.

Since you sent the first VOD request I am not quite sure if sending a 2nd letter or, seeing what type of response you get from your first letter, would be best. We will wait for more experienced members to clear that up..

Tryin2getup.

123 street.

Consumerist, PA 11111.

Debt Collector.

123 Ave..

Collections NY 22222.

CMRRR # - xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx.

RE: Account # 1111 2222 3333 4444.

Upon recent review of my credit report I noticed a negative entry by your company. Since I have never had contact with your office, nor have your offices contacted me, regarding this alleged debt, this letter shall serve as first contact for FDCPA purposes..

Your claims are disputed in full and I request validation of this debt you allege I owe. Please send all written corespondance to my address listed above. (insert LC&D here if you feel like it)..

Tryin2getup.

Simple and to the point..

You should really start looking for reporting errors and try to work the 623 dispute angle. I highly doubt the CA responds, or even cares, about any type of DV request on this account..

This post has been edited by.

Bobbydebt.

: 06 January 2010 - 10:32 PM..

No offense taken, I know I am a noob.

I have read the newbies board - twice through now... and the reason that I wanted to send out a second VD request is because they blaitantly ifnored the first one and made a point of rubbing it in my face by re-reporting my account exactly 1 week after receiving my VD. This CA is kinda known for not playing fairly from what I understand....

I realize you are right about it being to wordy, my point was to show them I mean bussiness without immediately escalating to a ITS right away. I hoped that by showing them I knew my rights they might comply..

As for the 623 letter, I had not received enough information regarding how they were reporting it yet to attack individual portions of the TL. I had already however initiated disputes with the CRA and DV'ed the CA's already from before finding this board. (yeah I know).

I however did get my first wave of CRA disputes back today... gonna post on that in a new thread cause it's not limited to this CA..

The question will be this:.

When did they actually transmit the information to the CRAs? Before or after the DV letter was received?.

What, exactly, did your first letter to them say?..

Whenever I am in that situation and I know I sent it I use the following:.

Peacock v Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC.

2005 WL 1277667 (N.D.Ohio).

Please note the above should ONLY be used IF you sent the letter AND you are in Court..

Huge question here. Pryan is quite correct, because if they sent the information our on the tape to the CRA's before they received your DV letter, then there is no violation...

Question, how can they have ignored the 1st one? they got it just 12/31.. regardless of whether or not they put it on you're credit report.. In my experience those alerts are always a day or so in some cases a week or so delay in getting them..

Sending a 2nd one.

Is WAY too soon.

You gotta give them time to respond. They just got the request LAST WEEK..

Now, if we're talking two months later, we'd be talking a different story..

Please slow down before you do more damage then good...