Debt verification of CA (Collection) What is the purpose of debt verification? Most people think it’s to verify the debt, surprise, it’s not. You already have a way to challenge the debt, a dispute! It’s actually to prevent debt collectors from harassing you for invalid debts. As a matter of fact, when you timely request debt verification, what it actually does is impose a cease contact bar on the debt collector until such time as they choose to respond with a verification letter, if they even choose to do so. Until they do, they can only send legal process. So it’s a way to stop them from communicating with you, but only if you do it timely. A simple debt verification request does NOT even legally require a response. During the “Initial Communication”, the debt collector is required to give you certain information. Either that, or they are required to follow it up with something known as a Dunning notice/validation notice giving that information within 5 days of the Initial Communication. Remember, if the initial communication was oral and they gave the information then, then they do not have to follow it up again with a paper notice. If the initial communication is paper, which it usually is, this notice is typically included with it, sometimes on the same piece of paper. The initial communication starts a timeline. You have 30 days within which to request debt verification, if you want it to have a legal effect and bar them from communicating with you. (Most people inaccurately refer to the ‘request for a debt verification’ as a ‘validation/verification letter’.) The response from the CA is the actual verification letter. If you request after 30 days, it does not impose a cease contact bar. Remember they’re not required to respond to an independent request for debt verification anyway, even if timely. So I have a simple but elegant solution: instead of simply requesting a debt verification letter, I recommend you file a direct dispute with the debt collector, requesting verification therein. Sometimes a request for verification is treated as such anyway. If you do it within 30 days of the Dunning notice, it will also impose a cease contact bar and now, a response is actually legally required, regardless of whether or not you are within the 30 day timeframe! In your direct dispute, you address what information you want, then they respond in the verification letter. If you don’t like their response, you can go file a CRA dispute: read the Dispute section of the Primer. If you don’t like the CRA response, you can ask for a MOV request, to learn how they went about making their decision, and then you can go to court or file a complaint with the CFPB. I noticed there’s a lot of confusion about debt validation/verification, so I wanted to make it clear that the Dunning notice is a validation notice. What the consumer sends is a request for debt verification within 30 days, if they want it to have legal effect. What the debt collector responds with is a verification letter/notice, if they respond. But if you send it as a direct dispute, they have to respond. Hopefully this will help everyone to understand the proper nomenclature. I understand the Internet says 1 million different things, don’t rely on what they say. But like I said the direct dispute is the better route, that way they legally have a duty to respond. So what constitutes an “initial communication”? Well it’s supposed to be the first time the debt collector makes contact with you. Courts have ruled that reporting the collection on your credit report does not constitute an initial communication nor trigger the requirement for the Dunning notice/validation notice. Not all circuits have conclusively ruled upon the issue though, IIRC. Here are some links to some information from the CFPB that gives sample letters and information you can demand in your dispute. Ask if you have questions. Edited again 6/24/22 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-if-i-believe-i-do-not-owe-the-debt-or-i-want-more-information-about-the-debt-en-1403/ https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201307_cfpb_debt-collection-letter-2_more-information.doc https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1006/34/ © 2022, MFBirdman7. All rights reserved by Birdman [CreditRebels.net](https://www.creditrebels.net)
Post

Debt Validation (Dunning Notice) / Verification Request / Debt Verification Letter

1 of 1
2 years ago
Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:46 am
User avatar
Birdman
Primer AuthorCo-Founder
Birdman has been gardening for over 2 years.
Level30 Last INQWednesday, March 2, 2022 Gardening For2 years, 6 months, 5 days, 20 hours, and 10 minutes Next Level in24 days, 3 hours, and 50 minutes on October 2nd INQ 1yr onThursday, March 2, 2023 INQ 1yr reached1 year, 6 months, 5 days, 20 hours, and 10 minutes ago INQ 2yr onSaturday, March 2, 2024 INQ 2yr reached6 months, 5 days, 20 hours, and 10 minutes ago
Post was altered.
Last edited by Birdman on Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Debt verification of CA (Collection) What is the purpose of debt verification? Most people think it’s to verify the debt, surprise, it’s not. You already have a way to challenge the debt, a dispute! It’s actually to prevent debt collectors from harassing you for invalid debts. As a matter of fact, when you timely request debt verification, what it actually does is impose a cease contact bar on the debt collector until such time as they choose to respond with a verification letter, if they even choose to do so. Until they do, they can only send legal process. So it’s a way to stop them from communicating with you, but only if you do it timely. A simple debt verification request does NOT even legally require a response. During the “Initial Communication”, the debt collector is required to give you certain information. Either that, or they are required to follow it up with something known as a Dunning notice/validation notice giving that information within 5 days of the Initial Communication. Remember, if the initial communication was oral and they gave the information then, then they do not have to follow it up again with a paper notice. If the initial communication is paper, which it usually is, this notice is typically included with it, sometimes on the same piece of paper. The initial communication starts a timeline. You have 30 days within which to request debt verification, if you want it to have a legal effect and bar them from communicating with you. (Most people inaccurately refer to the ‘request for a debt verification’ as a ‘validation/verification letter’.) The response from the CA is the actual verification letter. If you request after 30 days, it does not impose a cease contact bar. Remember they’re not required to respond to an independent request for debt verification anyway, even if timely. So I have a simple but elegant solution: instead of simply requesting a debt verification letter, I recommend you file a direct dispute with the debt collector, requesting verification therein. Sometimes a request for verification is treated as such anyway. If you do it within 30 days of the Dunning notice, it will also impose a cease contact bar and now, a response is actually legally required, regardless of whether or not you are within the 30 day timeframe! In your direct dispute, you address what information you want, then they respond in the verification letter. If you don’t like their response, you can go file a CRA dispute: read the Dispute section of the Primer. If you don’t like the CRA response, you can ask for a MOV request, to learn how they went about making their decision, and then you can go to court or file a complaint with the CFPB. I noticed there’s a lot of confusion about debt validation/verification, so I wanted to make it clear that the Dunning notice is a validation notice. What the consumer sends is a request for debt verification within 30 days, if they want it to have legal effect. What the debt collector responds with is a verification letter/notice, if they respond. But if you send it as a direct dispute, they have to respond. Hopefully this will help everyone to understand the proper nomenclature. I understand the Internet says 1 million different things, don’t rely on what they say. But like I said the direct dispute is the better route, that way they legally have a duty to respond. So what constitutes an “initial communication”? Well it’s supposed to be the first time the debt collector makes contact with you. Courts have ruled that reporting the collection on your credit report does not constitute an initial communication nor trigger the requirement for the Dunning notice/validation notice. Not all circuits have conclusively ruled upon the issue though, IIRC. Here are some links to some information from the CFPB that gives sample letters and information you can demand in your dispute. Ask if you have questions. Edited again 6/24/22 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfp ... t-en-1403/ https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201 ... mation.doc https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-p ... s/1006/34/ © 2022, MFBirdman7. All rights reserved by Birdman [CreditRebels.net](https://www.creditrebels.net)
Birdman
User avatar
  • Score data EQ8-827; TU8-817; EX8-816
    EQ5-751; TI4- 800; EX2-814
3
Processing