Verification/Validation

I recently received a request for advice from a member of one of my groups as follows:

"Any help would be welcomed. I have an old debt. One that was at a local [Name Withheld], then the [Name Withheld] closed down. I had a 300 credit limit. This was exchanged to a new company [Name Withheld]. By the time I had received it the debt was jacked up in interest and late payment rates, to the tune of 1001.75. I recently got a letter from a new debt collection agency, So I used the validation letter, sent it certified mail. They opened it and signed for it 1 day after the 30 days even though I sent it in ample time. This was signed for Nov 13. I just received a letter from them typed,

"Our records indicate the account was opened on Nov 22, 1998, last purchase Oct 9, 1999 and last payment May 25, 2002. We have no record of returned mail sent to the current or previous billing address on this account. The fair credit billing act requires that any dispute be received no later than 60 days after the first bill was transmitted that reflects the alleged billing error and the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that information sufficient to identify the specific information in dispute be provided. This information should included the exact date of the transaction and amount in dispute. Additionally, the Fair Credit Collections Practices Act does not state that we have an obligation to forward copies of previously sent billing statements. We have no record of your disputing the account balance or specific transaction during the applicable time periods and your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to investigate any possible dispute, we shall consider our provision of the information above as validation of the debt. If you have information concerning a specific dispute, please forward it to us for consideration. Due to the serious level of delinquency, the account was charged off on February 17,2003 and placed with the first of several outside collection agencies. The unpaid balance will remain on our records and the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off for the period of time permitted by federal law.

Please be advised that we reserve the right to take whatever action are legally available to protect our interest. "

It is with a collection agency. I'm really confused. I thought that I send a letter to have them prove the charges, I only used 300 on my old [Name Withheld] card. Then if they couldn't prove it Poof. What legal rights do they have here with a charge off???"

I feel this letter serves as an excellent example of how a collection agency should NOT respond to a request for validation and my response to the poster was as follows:

"First … lets address the issue of whether or not your dispute of the debt was timely.

Timely Dispute

30 Days run from the date “validation letter” is received … not from the date it was sent.

"The Supreme Court has stated that "[a] statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant." U.S. v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457 (1971) (quoting Washington Mkt. Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 115-16, 25 L.Ed. 782(1879)). All provisions of the statute must be considered and each term must be interpreted equally, so as not to deflect from the meaning of the statute. West v. Nationwide Credit, 998 F.Supp. 642, 644 (W.D.N.C.1998). Specifically, as to 15 U.S.C. § 1692, every clause and word must be given force" http://caselaw.home.comcast.net/files/BLAIR-v-SHERMAN.doc

The courts do not simply ignore words within statute.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1692g a 3 > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001692---g000-.html

(a) Notice of debt; contents
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—
(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;

You have 30 days from the date you RECEIVED the “validation letter”, not from the time they sent it, no matter what claims or demands are made along with the above required statements.

Dispute must be mailed within 30 days, not be received by the Collection Agency within 30 days.

They need not receive your dispute letter within that 30 days so long as you mailed it within 30 days. To claim otherwise would undercut the validation period clearly specified within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

“Nothing in Section 1692g requires, and we have found no other court decision which has required, that the debt collector must receive notice of the dispute within thirty days as defendant insists….. If we were to hold that the validation request must be received by the thirtieth day, we would be rewriting Section 1692g, which we are not entitled to do.” http://caselaw.home.comcast.net/files/CHAUNCEY-v-JDR.rtf

You have proof of when you sent your letter; do you still have the postmarked envelope their letter came in? Or, did you mail your dispute within 30 days of the date of the letter? You can also safely add 3 days to the postmark date ... if you don't recall exactly what date you received the letter.

Having all three dates … Date you received the letter, Date of the postmark and Date of the letter are all nice to have. The date you received the letter is the important date but the other dates can help establish the date it was received if you don’t know the date it was received. A notation of when it was received is best, Date it was postmarked is the next, Date of the letter itself is the least important. If you mailed your dispute within 30 days of the date on the letter itself you are in the clear. I have personally seen a letter sent by a Collection Agency where the letter was dated 10 days before the postmark, which is why that date is the least important or reliable.


Having established that you did in fact timely dispute the debt, we move on to whether or not the collection agency appropriately verified the debt.

Verification of the Debt

Does reiterating information from the Collector Own database suffice as verification?

1692g b states as follows: “(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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 a 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.”


As noted above, “every clause and word must be given force”.

The use of the word “until” by the drafters clearly indicates that the Collection Agency does NOT currently posses what is required to provide appropriate verification of the debt. To assume otherwise would render the word “until” meaningless within the context of the statute. The same applies to the word “obtains”. One does not need to obtain what they already posses. To assume they already have what is necessary to provide appropriate verification would render the word “obtain” meaningless within the context of the statute.

To conclude that the Collection Agency must only refer to the information already in their possession would not only render the words “until” and “obtain” meaningless but would render entire sections of the statute meaningless. Namely: 1692 g a 3, 1692 g a 4 and 1692 g b.

ver·i·fy to ascertain the truth or correctness of

If we concluded that the Collection Agency does already posses the information required to verify … what would they be ascertaining the correctness of? That the printer in fact printed correctly and/or that the post office is actually capable of delivering a letter to the correct address? (no comments from the peanut gallery!)

The conclusion is that the Collection Agency MUST (if they wish to continue to attempt to collect) contact the original creditor to obtain the necessary information and documents to verify the debt. This must then be forwarded to the Consumer.

A Collection Agency who merely parrots information already contained in their database in response to a dispute violates the statute as soon as they make another demand for payment.

What information must be obtained and forwarded to verify the debt?

This is an elusive answer. This issue has been relegated to being judged on a case by case basis in the courts. As such it is extremely difficult lay out in no uncertain terms what constitutes appropriate verification. We can look to court cases for guidance.

In GUERRERO-v-RJM the Collection Agency attempted to claim a letter was verification of a debt. It contained only "date that the account was opened, the date that the last payment was posted, the name and social security number listed on the account, and the current balance". The court found that this was not adequate verification of the debt and found that the letter also constituted an improper (given the lack of verification) attempt to collect the debt prior to providing verification and granted a summary judgment for the Plaintiff (consumer) on both issues. http://caselaw.home.comcast.net/files/GUERRERO-v-RJM.doc

In your case they did not provide you with the SS# nor did it state the current balance. As in the Guerrero case ... "The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred. ........The letter also failed to indicate whether interest was factored into the current balance, and, if so, at what rate and for what time period."

We can also look to the statute for some clarification. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 f 1 forbids “The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” Similarly, 1692 e 2 A forbids “The false representation of— (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or…”

The courts also strive to interpret statute so that the results are not absurd or irrational. The assumption that appropriate verification does not include an account statement detailing the amount and basis of the charges underlying the current balance, would lead to the absurd and irrational result that only by filing suit for violations of 1692 f 1 or 1692 e 2 A could the consumer confirm that they have not violated those sections.

Yet despite these failures ... your Collection Agency’s response clearly is a continued effort to collect the debt in stating "The unpaid balance will remain on our records and the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off for the period of time permitted by federal law. Please be advised that we reserve the right to take whatever action are legally available to protect our interest."

Other violation contained in this letter

There are other violations contained in the letter you have quoted. The following addresses those violations.

15 U.S.C. § 1692 e states as follows: “A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.”


"We have no record of returned mail sent to the current or previous billing address on this account."

This is irrelevant ... what is relevant is that you received their letter containing the statements required by 1692g and that you timely responded by disputing the debt. That being the case they are required to cease collection until they have OBTAINED and provided verification, they have failed to do either as noted above. This also violates 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10, by falsely and deceptively implying that since you have allegedly failed to previously dispute the debt, the Collection Agency now has no obligation to acknowledge or respond to your dispute.

They have also stipulated in this letter that “Due to the serious level of delinquency, the account was charged off on February 17,2003 and placed with the first of several outside collection agencies”

It is highly unlikely, especially after having been through “several outside collection agencies”, that they would have any record of any previous communications to or from anyone regarding this account. It is highly likely that the only information they received on assignment of this account was: Name, last known address, last known phone number, SS#, Date of birth, Date of last purchase, Date of last payment, Date of Charge off, current (as of the time assigned) past due balance. The implication that such a record even exists false and deceptive. As such is another violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

Any representation of what a record that does not exist does or does not contains is a false and deceptive means to collect a debt. As such, that representation is a violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

The Fair Credit Billing Act

“CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE” is a subsection of CHAPTER 41—CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act also fall under the Chapter 41. What is commonly referred to as “The Fair Credit Billing Act” is a subsection of the “CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE” provisions of Federal Law and it can be found here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_41_20_I_30_D.html

Since the Fair Credit Billing Act is a subsection of “CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE”, the definitions contained in “CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE” apply to its subsections unless otherwise specified within a section.

The Fair Credit Billing Act defines “creditor” as follows: “creditor” refers only to a person who both

1. regularly extends, whether in connection with loans, sales of property or services, or otherwise, consumer credit which is payable by agreement in more than four installments or for which the payment of a finance charge is or may be required, and
   
2. is the person to whom the debt arising from the consumer credit transaction is initially payable on the face of the evidence of indebtedness or, if there is no such evidence of indebtedness, by agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the case of an open-end credit plan involving a credit card, the card issuer and any person who honors the credit card and offers a discount which is a finance charge are creditors. For the purpose of the requirements imposed under part D of this subchapter and sections 1637 (a)(5), 1637 (a)(6), 1637 (a)(7), 1637 (b)(1), 1637 (b)(2), 1637 (b)(3), 1637 (b)(8), and 1637 (b)(10) of this title, the term “creditor” shall also include card issuers whether or not the amount due is payable by agreement in more than four installments or the payment of a finance charge is or may be required, and the Board shall, by regulation, apply these requirements to such card issuers, to the extent appropriate, even though the requirements are by their terms applicable only to creditors offering open-end credit plans. Any person who originates 2 or more mortgages referred to in subsection (aa) of this section in any 12-month period or any person who originates 1 or more such mortgages through a mortgage broker shall be considered to be a creditor for purposes of this subchapter.”

A Collection Agency is NOT a creditor as defined by the Fair Credit Billing Act. The Fair Credit Billing Act applies only to “creditors” as defined by the Fair Credit Billing Act. A Collection Agency cannot enforce the Fair Credit Billing Act.

"The fair credit billing act requires that any dispute be received no later than 60 days after the first bill was transmitted that reflects the alleged billing error"

This is actually true, however, what they are leaving out is that the Fair Credit Billing Act does NOT apply to a 3rd party Collection Agency, it only applies to the Original Creditor and even if it did, the Fair Credit Billing Act does NOT exempt a Collection Agency from compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This situation/dispute is governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and as such they must meet the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

If we accepted the contention that the requirements of disputes under the Fair Credit Billing Act could be applied to third party Collection Agency’s it would create an absurd and irrational result, that being … in the case of an identity theft or mistaken identity, the consumer cannot dispute the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because they failed to dispute a debt that they likely did not know existed timely under the Fair Credit Billing Act. This would leave the victim of identity theft or mistaken identity powerless to defend their rights.

This would also in effect re-write the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exclude those who are collecting any debt, which at any point fell under the Fair Credit Billing Act, from the requirement to comply with 1692 g b. A statute cannot be read in such a way as to effectively re-write a different statute. Also an absurd and irrational result.

The implication that the Fair Credit Billing Act even applies to the current situation is a violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

The implication that you have lost your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because you failed to assert your rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act is a violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

"Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that information sufficient to identify the specific information in dispute be provided."

(Actually, after further review, I stand corrected from my previous post.)

The Fair Credit Reporting Act does in fact require that specific information be provided. However, this situation is also governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act places no such requirements on consumers.

"Unsophisticated consumers, whatever else may be said about them, cannot be expected to assert their § 1692 rights in legally precise phrases. It is therefore enough to put debt collectors on notice under § 1692 when a consumer states in plain English…." http://caselaw.home.comcast.net/files/HORKEY-v-JVDB.pdf

By implying that your failure to provide “specific information in dispute” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act excuses them from the requirement to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act they have violated 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

“This information should included the exact date of the transaction and amount in dispute.”

Falsely and deceptively implies that the consumer include more than “I dispute this debt” in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

“Additionally, the Fair Credit Collections Practices Act does not state that we have an obligation to forward copies of previously sent billing statements”

Was this a typo on your part?

“Fair Credit Collections Practices Act” Falsely and deceptively names the law that does govern them. I would guess in an effort to prevent you from finding out what your rights actually are.

I would label this not only as False and deceptive but also unfair and unconscionable means in attempting to collect a debt in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10, and 1692 f generally.

"We have no record of your disputing the account balance or specific transaction during the applicable time periods"

This is again falsely and deceptively implies that you must provide specific information in a dispute in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10. This also falsely and deceptively implies that you did not timely dispute, which you did, in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

“and your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to investigate any possible dispute"

I believe this is another repeated statement. This falsely and deceptively implies again that you must do more than state “I dispute this debt” in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

"we shall consider out provision of the information above as validation of the debt"

Falsely and deceptively implies that this letter suffices as appropriate verification in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

"If you have information concerning a specific dispute, please forward it to us for consideration."

Again, falsely and deceptively implies that you must dispute specific information in violation of 1692 e generally and 1692 e 10.

“The unpaid balance will remain on our records…”

Section e 5 of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 forbids “The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.”

This constitutes a threat to take an action, which cannot legally (they cannot legally continue to attempt to collect without providing verification) be taken especially since it was not qualified whether or not they consider it disputed. The letter makes it clear that they feel that you have not made a “valid” dispute. A possibly mistaken yet reasonable interpretation by an unsophisticated consumer, especially considering that the letter unequivocally denies that you have made a “valid” dispute. This is in violation of 1692 e generally, 1692 e 5, and 1692 e 10. This is also a separate violation than if they actually continue to collect, which would violate 1692 g b. As noted previously, this letter itself is an attempt to collect.

“…the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off for the period of time permitted by federal law.”

Section e 8 of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 forbids “Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.”

This letter also violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 8 because they clearly states, “the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”, without clarifying that it will also be noted as disputed by the consumer. A possibly mistaken yet reasonable interpretation by an unsophisticated consumer, especially considering that the letter unequivocally denies that you have made a “valid” dispute. If in fact they fail to properly report that you have disputed this debt, it would constitute a separate violation of the same section of the statute.

They cannot legally report this debt without also reporting it as disputed. This makes the threat and the action also a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 5.

“Please be advised that we reserve the right to take whatever action are legally available to protect our interest."

This constitutes a threat to take an action, which is not intended to be taken, that they will sue you. This statement violates of 1692 e generally, 1692 e 5, and 1692 e 10.

If this debt is time barred, then legal action cannot be taken. Any attempt to do so would constitute a separate violation of 1692 e generally, 1692 e 5, and 1692 e 10. The threat to take legal action on a time barred debt also misrepresents the legal status of the debt in violation of 1692 e 2 A. See http://caselaw.home.comcast.net/files/FREYERMUTH-v-CBS.pdf (also cites several other cases which held that the threat to take legal action on a time barred debt is a violation)



This letter as a whole violates the act generally (yes this is a legitimate legal claim under the act) because the letter as a whole is an attempt to mislead you as to what your rights and what their legal responsibilities are.

In review, this letter contains the following violations: each one is a separate and distinct violation.

1. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that since you have allegedly failed to previously dispute the debt, the Collection Agency now has no obligation to acknowledge or respond to your dispute. ("We have no record of returned mail sent to the current…”)
   
2. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that since you have allegedly failed to previously dispute the debt, the Collection Agency now has no obligation to acknowledge or respond to your dispute. ("We have no record of returned mail sent to the current…”)
   
3. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that a record of previous correspondence regarding this debt with other entities exists and they have possession of that record. ("We have no record of returned mail sent to the current…”)
   
4. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that a record of previous correspondence regarding this debt with other entities exists and they have possession of that record. ("We have no record of returned mail sent to the current…”)
   
5. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: making false and deceptive representation as to what a non-existent record contains. ("We have no record of returned mail sent to the current…”)
   
6. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: making false and deceptive representation as to what a non-existent record contains. ("We have no record of returned mail sent to the current…”)
   
7. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that the Fair Credit Billing Act applies to the current situation. ("The fair credit billing act requires…”)
   
8. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that the Fair Credit Billing Act applies to the current situation. ("The fair credit billing act requires…”)
   
9. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that by failing to assert your rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act you have waived your rights under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ("The fair credit billing act requires…”)
   
10. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that by failing to assert your rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act you have waived your rights under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ("The fair credit billing act requires…”)
    
11. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that you must “provide specific information in dispute under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” (Fair Credit Reporting Act reference) ("Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that information sufficient…”)
    
12. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that you must “provide specific information in dispute under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” (Fair Credit Reporting Act reference) ("Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that information sufficient…”)
    
13. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that any failure on your part under a different act (Fair Credit Reporting Act) excuses them from complying with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Fair Credit Reporting Act reference) ("Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that information sufficient…”)
    
14. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that any failure on your part under a different act (Fair Credit Reporting Act) excuses them from complying with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Fair Credit Reporting Act reference) ("Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that information sufficient…”)
    
15. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: Falsely and deceptively implies that the consumer include more than “I dispute this debt” (“This information should included the exact date…”)
    
16. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: Falsely and deceptively implies that the consumer include more than “I dispute this debt” (“This information should included the exact date…”)
    
17. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: Falsely and deceptively misnaming the law that governs debt collection. (“Additionally, the Fair Credit Collections Practices Act….”)
    
18. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: Falsely and deceptively misnaming the law that governs debt collection. (“Additionally, the Fair Credit Collections Practices Act….”)
    
19. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 f generally: Unfairly and unconscionably misnaming the law that governs debt collection. (“Additionally, the Fair Credit Collections Practices Act….”)
    
20. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying again that you must provide specific information. ("We have no record of your disputing the account balance…”)
    
21. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying again that you must provide specific information. ("We have no record of your disputing the account balance…”)
    
22. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that you failed to timely dispute. ("We have no record of your disputing the account balance…”)
    
23. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that you failed to timely dispute. ("We have no record of your disputing the account balance…”)
    
24. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that you must include specific information disputed. (“and your letter does not provide sufficient…”)
    
25. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that you must include specific information disputed. (“and your letter does not provide sufficient…”)
    
26. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implying that this letter suffices as appropriate verification. ("we shall consider our provision of the information…”)
    
27. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implying that this letter suffices as appropriate verification. ("we shall consider our provision of the information…”)
    
28. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: falsely and deceptively implies that you must dispute specific information (“"If you have information concerning a specific dispute….”)
    
29. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: falsely and deceptively implies that you must dispute specific information (“"If you have information concerning a specific dispute….”)
    
30. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: The letter as a whole attempt to mislead you as to what your rights are and their responsibilities are.
    
31. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: The letter as a whole attempt to mislead you as to what your rights are and their responsibilities are.
    
32. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: Falsely and deceptively implies again that you have not made a valid dispute. (“The unpaid balance will remain on our records…”)
    
33. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 5: Threatens to take an action which cannot be legally taken, they will continue to collect. (“The unpaid balance will remain on our records…”)
    
34. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: Falsely and deceptively implies again that you have not made a valid dispute. (“The unpaid balance will remain on our records…”)
    
35. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 g b: Failure to cease attempts to collect the debt until they have provided verification of the debt. (“The unpaid balance will remain on our records…”)
    
36. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: Again Falsely implies that you have not made a “valid” dispute. (“the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”)
    
37. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 5: Threatening to take an action which cannot legally be taken, failure to report as disputed. (“the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”)
    
38. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 5: Taking an action which cannot legally be taken, failure to report as disputed. (“the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”)
    
39. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 8: Threatening to communicate credit information which is known to be inaccurate, failure to note as disputed. (“the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”)
    
40. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 8: Failing to report this account as disputed by the consumer. (“the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”)
    
41. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: Again Falsely implies that you have not made a “valid” dispute. (“the account will continue to report as an unpaid charge off”)
    
42. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: Again, falsely implies that you have not made a “valid” dispute. (“Please be advised that we reserve the right….”)
    
43. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 5: Threatens to take an action which is not intended to be taken. (“Please be advised that we reserve the right….”)
    
44. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: Again, falsely implies that you have not made a “valid” dispute. (“Please be advised that we reserve the right….”)
    
    If the debt is time barred ….
    
    
45. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e generally: Misrepresents the legal status of the debt. Threatens to sue on a time barred debt.
    
46. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 2 A: Misrepresents the legal status of the debt. Threatens to sue on a time barred debt.
    
47. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e 10: Misrepresents the legal status of the debt. Threatens to sue on a time barred debt.