1 - 2 Punch Method

[blah123a]

I'm about to submit a dispute of a few accounts; one open, three closed.

I've seen the 1 - 2 punch method and am curious if I should send a validation letter first to the CA as described or after sending disputes to the CRA and receiving a validation.

The reason I ask is that I've seen both described as the way to do it.

Any help is appreciated.

[HouseBy2012]

I think you are supposed to have CA validate first and then dispute with CRA- thats what I am doing. I sent out 2 validation letters on Friday- and giving them 30 days to provide the info they are supposed to and then disputing with the CRA.

[Lian]

Unless you live in Texas, there is no statutory period for a debt collector to respond to a DV letter.

[Hal Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lian

Unless you live in Texas, there is no statutory period for a debt collector to respond to a DV letter.

Unless there has never been any contact initiated by them at any point.

The 1-2 punch method is pretty clear. SEND DV letter to CA first... Once they receive the letter (not when they validate it) Dispute the debt then with the CRA's. The thought process behind it is if they get the DV letter and verify the debt with the CRA's before validating the debt with you they have violted the FDCPA.

Now this is all based on the belief that they did not send you a dunning letter with language about your rights to dispute when they first received the debt. The 1-2 punch assumes this will be your first communication with the collection agency.

If they've already sent you the dunning letter with dispute rights explained they don't have to answer to your request and can keep right on collecting.

But it's still worth a shot. Personaly, 90% of all DV letters I've sent out have either resulted in the CA deleting the debt or validating the debt with me. Some get ignored but most will get a response.

Dving is good to do because it lets you know where the debt came from, who owns it and who you need to deal with to try and get it removed should you go the PFD method..

[Lian]

You can DV them at any time, even before a dunning notice is received. The date they dunned you simply sets your final period to timely DV. They can continue collection activities after dunning you until such time as a timely DV letter is received. Once a timely DV is received by them, they must cease collection activities with the consumer until such time as validation is provided.

The so-called 1-2 punch process is predicated upon the theory that their mandatory, statutory requirement under FCRA 623(b)(2) to report the results of their investigation of a dispute back to the CRA within the time periods set forth in FCRA 611(a)(1) is somehow prohibited under FDCPA 809(b) as being a debt collection activity. I don't believe that compliance with the dispute process is a prohibited collection activity with the consumer.

Congress does not enact legislation with the intent of preventing compliance with other sections of statute.

Has anyone ever successfully litigated an assertion that a debt collector is barred from compliance with FCRA 623(b)(2) under the "cease collection" provision of FDCPA 809(b)? If not, then the 1-2 punch is just, in my opinion, theory, and unsupported by any legislative or judicial precedent.