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

The key to the 1-2 punch is a "Timely" dv.

If you mail the DV within the first 30 days of initial contact, they have to stop all collection activities (including responding to requests from the CRA) until they handle your DV.

If you are not within those 30 days, then they don't have to stop collecting and can respond freely to your dispute. That takes the punch out of the 1-2 punch..

As to the SOL:.

A debtor can sue you in either the state the debt originiated in or your current state of residence. If they chose to sue you in Kentucky and win, they would then have to have the judgement transferred to Arkansas. You would be notified like any other court action and would have to argue that the AR SOL should apply. Would have to read arkansas SOL statute to see if you would win (if AR recognizes borrowing/reverse borrowing, etc)..

The SOL is determined by the DOFD (Date of First Delinquency). Basically the last time you went into default and never became current again. That is either the date of your last payment or the due date of the first payment you skipped, depending on your state laws. This probably isnt reported on TU and, if it is, it's probably wrong..

The same DOFD is used to start both the 7 year reporting clock and the state SOL clock..

This post has been edited by jtoast: 05 February 2010 - 05:58 PM..

So you are saying it is probably better to send the dispute letter first??.

I was reading on another forum it is best to send a DV letter first and track it once you know it has been received immediately file disputes with the CRA through the mail.

Should I perhaps send the dispute letters first?..

A DV is a dispute. You tell the CA that you dispute the debt, they come back to you with validation..

You can also dispute with the CRA who then go back to the CA or OC and verify the info..

Read my last post in the below thread. It includes a cut/paste of the relevant portion of the FDCPA..

Http://creditboards....howtopic=426287..

Most of these accounts are all relatively old I'm just going to send DV letters and track as soon as they are tracked as delivered and I know they have received is when I will send the disputes to the CRAs..

Then none of the DV's will be timely and the 1-2 punch will have no punch. Not saying don't DV them, just understand that they have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to respond in any way...

Every place I read online about the 1-2 punch indicates that you send teh dv letter once you know they have received then you dispute with the CRA.

Once you dispute with the cra they can not do anything on the dispute until they validate your debt with you so this throws them in a time crunch.

This post has been edited by decadude: 05 February 2010 - 07:05 PM..

You're missing the point, man!.

Forget about the 1-2 punch. It doesn't apply to you because you're past 30 days of when they first contacted you..

Unless you dispute the debt with the debt collector within 30 days of them *first contacting you*, they can ignore your DV and continue collection activity at will. This means if you DV them today, and in 5 days (or whenever the DVs are received) send letters to the CRAs, the CAs can verify the debt with the CRAs and there is no violation. Period..

This post has been edited by fdj: 05 February 2010 - 07:28 PM..

Well, I dont think a judge would care about what an internet forum thread told you. Read the newbies section, and read the law...

So basically the best thing I can do is do at this point is just dispute with the CRA in writing..

Debt validation only applied when they first sent teh debt to collections years ago when they made first contact of have sent the debt to collections??..

So basically the DV is pointless and I should just write the CRAs dispute letters at this point??.

I was not aware that the CAs were only obligated to respond to a DV only within the first 30 days of notification that I was sent to collections..

This kinda sucks but all things happen for a reason I have all my DV letters ready but I have no sent them to the post office or paid to have them sent..

Hoping someone can verify this all over the internet I see people sending debt validation and doing the 1-2 punch and mentioning they are doing this on old debt accounds...

I only mention this because my husband is from KY and I had an interest in this.

I've seen several links that state the SOL in KY on some debts is 15 yrs.

Also, read the newbs section, and read up on a "jackattack" also...check out the psych doc transcripts.....theyll help you organize..

Debt validation applies to the 30-day period following "the initial communication". If you didn't assert your right to dispute the debt then, you've waived that right forever...

I am seeing where people are doing debt validation after a dispute has been validated with the CRA after a dispute with the CRA I believe DV can apply there from what I have been reading..

And then they have 30 days to respond..

Fdj or someone else do correct me if I am wrong and I am unsure on the 30 day to respond part but I have found the following sample letter as well..

January 10, 2006.

Re: Account #1111111.

Your company is reporting the above referenced account on my credit report as a collection account. I have disputed this item with the credit reporting agency and they reported you confirmed the account as valid..

In a good faith effort to resolve the matter amicably, I must demand proof of this debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such proof, you must correct any erroneous reports of this past debt as mine..

I must ask you to provide the following information:.

1. Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f) in this alleged matter..

2. What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?.

3. What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?.

4. Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in this state..

5. Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature..

6. Please provide a complete account history, including any charges added for collection activity..

You have thirty (30) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you placed this on my credit report(s) in error and that this matter is permanently closed. Provide the proof, or correct the record and remove this invalid debt from all sources to which you have reported it to..

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status..

Sincerely,.

Name..

DUDE! STOP!.

Forget everything you learned up to this point. Start with no frame of reference..

1. You can request validation or dispute a debt at any time. But, unless the dispute is received within the first 30 days (a timely dispute) of the consumer receiving a dunning letter (which, by law, needs to be sent to the consumer within 5 days of the CA's initial contact) then the CA does not have to cease collection efforts. The timely DV forces the collection, by law, to cease further collection activity. Therefore, the CA cannot verify a dispute with CRA's (that is considered continued collection activity). That is the 1-2 punch.

Get it?.

2. The letter you posted above is maybe the worst letter floating around the internet. Do not use it. The CA is not required by law to provide most of the information you are requesting in the letter. A simple:.

" This letter is notice that your claims are disputed in full and that validation of this alleged debt is requested."..

With all due respect to the author of that letter, just because someone posted a letter here (or anywhere else, for that matter) doesn't mean it's valid..

For starters, the sections of the FDCPA that were quoted in that letter have to do with "False or misleading representations" (1692e) and "Unfair practices" (1692f). They have nothing to do with "authorization" to collect debts..

Second, a CA doesn't have to provide you with authorization of anything anyway - especially if you waive your right to dispute the debt (which you have done if you didn't dispute it within 30 days of initial communication). The business about "you have 30 days" and "hand signed" is also baseless. You only show your own ignorance when you demand things like this..

Finally, it is possible to dispute items with CAs beyond the initial 30 days, but it's not a DV in accordance with the FDCPA - it's a "dispute" under the FCRA (1681s-2(a)(8)) and it's more work on your part. You have to dispute with the CRAs FIRST (Jack Attack is the way I would go). If the items come back verified or updated, you then have to go to the CA (actually works for anyone reporting) and tell them exactly what is wrong *and why* and provide them with documentation supporting the basis of your dispute. In other words, if you say "this date is wrong", you have to say why it's wrong (i.e. "My last payment was in January, not March") and provide documented proof for why it's wrong..

If your intent is to just fire off letters in a shotgun approach to try to get deletions with no contingency plan, you're on the right path, but beware of unintended consequences..

If, however, you intend to systematically use the law to back them into a corner, you need to know the laws you're using and how they are appropriate..

I would start by getting yourself a copy of the FDCPA from the FTC's website. Here's a link to it in PDF format:.

Http://www.ftc.gov/b...redit/cre27.pdf.

This post has been edited by fdj: 06 February 2010 - 09:14 AM..

The consumer does not waive their right to dispute a debt if they dont respond within 30 days of receiving a dunning letter from the CA. The CA is not required to cease collection activity, thats the only difference. If the right to dispute was waived for not disputing timely, then no one would be able to defend themselves in court against a CA seeking a judgement.

Not responding timely is not an admission of guilt by the consumer..

This post has been edited by Bobbydebt: 06 February 2010 - 09:19 AM..

Thanks guys for your work in helping me I will read more on the jack attack.

I now understand that the 1-2 punch is only going to work once the debt is sent to the CA and then they have 5 days to notify. So these debts that I am inquiring about are all relatively old..

I will take your advice and read about the jack attack I have no clue what approach this is but sounds interesting.

Thanks again.

And before I send a letter of any kind I will post it in this forum...

Glad this place exist!!..

They are waiving their right under the FDCPA to dispute the debt with the CA. Since that's what we're talking about here, and not being sued (yet), it didn't occur to me to point out the difference...

Hi,.

A question occured to me as I was reading through this -.

What happens in situations where the CA has owned the account for a while (say a year or two), and has never sent a dunning letter, or attempted any communication at all? Or, what if maybe they called once or twice, but still never sent the letter? If you attempt the 1-2 punch in these situations and assert in the DV that you are within the initial 30 days, will that hold up and will the punch of the 1-2 work? If they claim to have sent the letter, but have no evidence, who wins?..

Unfortunately they don't have to prove they sent the letter. All they have to do is produce a copy of the letter they claimed to have sent and testify that it was sent in accordance with their normal mailing procedures..

The triggering factor per the FDCPA is when you received their first communication; not when they sent it. This is why in these types of cases (phone calls but no letter yet), it's very important to make a statement in your very first letter that their phone call was the first time you heard from them...