Responding to Debt Collector Defenses

Your "verification" is legally insufficient. Under the FDCPA, debt verification requires more than a simple statement that the debt is valid. In Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, the Fourth Circuit held that verification requires providing documents that confirm the amount and existence of the debt.

Your response failed to provide:

1. A copy of the original signed contract or credit agreement 2. Complete payment history from the original creditor 3. Chain of title documentation if the debt was sold 4. Itemized breakdown of how the current balance was calculated

Simply stating "we verified the debt" does not satisfy your legal obligation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Under Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, the collector must provide the consumer with enough information to enable the consumer to verify the debt.

Until you provide proper verification as required by law, you must cease all collection activity. Continuing to collect on this unverified debt constitutes a violation of federal law.

I dispute the amount claimed and demand an itemized breakdown of all charges. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1), you must provide "the amount of the debt." Where the amount includes interest, fees, or other charges beyond the original principal, you must demonstrate legal authority to collect these amounts.

Specifically, I require:

1. The original principal balance 2. Each interest charge with the rate and legal basis (contract provision or statute) 3. Each fee with the specific amount and legal authorization 4. Proof that the original contract authorized these specific charges 5. Proof that California law permits these charges

Under California Civil Code § 1788.14, a debt collector may not collect any amount that is not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Collecting unauthorized fees constitutes a Rosenthal Act violation, potentially subject to statutory damages.

If you cannot document legal authority for each charge, you must remove unauthorized amounts from your claim.

I dispute your statute of limitations calculation. Under California law, the statute of limitations on written contracts (including most credit cards) is 4 years from the date of default. For oral agreements, it is 2 years.

According to my records, the last activity/payment on this account was [DATE]. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 337 (written contracts) or § 339 (oral), the limitations period expired on [CALCULATED DATE].

Important legal points:

1. A partial payment does NOT reset the statute of limitations in California unless accompanied by an explicit written promise to pay the full amount (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 360) 2. Acknowledging the debt in writing does NOT reset the SOL in California 3. A debt being "charged off" does not restart the SOL 4. The debt being sold to a new collector does not restart the SOL

If you contend the debt is not time-barred, provide documentation of the specific event that allegedly reset the limitations period, with legal authority supporting your position.

Your attempt to avoid liability by claiming "original creditor" status fails under California law. While the federal FDCPA excludes original creditors from its definition of "debt collector" (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)), California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act DOES cover original creditors.

California Civil Code § 1788.2(c) defines "debt collector" to include "any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection." This explicitly includes original creditors collecting their own debts.

Therefore, even as the original creditor, you are subject to:

1. All Rosenthal Act prohibitions on abusive and deceptive practices (Civ. Code § 1788.10-1788.17) 2. All FDCPA standards incorporated by the Rosenthal Act (Civ. Code § 1788.17) 3. Potential liability for statutory damages

Your "original creditor" defense does not shield you from California consumer protection law.

Sending an initial validation notice does not satisfy your obligation to respond to my written dispute. These are two separate requirements under the FDCPA:

1. Validation Notice (§ 1692g(a)): You must send within 5 days of initial contact - this is a one-way disclosure requirement

2. Verification Upon Dispute (§ 1692g(b)): When the consumer disputes IN WRITING within 30 days, you must CEASE COLLECTION and PROVIDE VERIFICATION before continuing

I sent a written dispute dated [DATE], received by you on [DATE]. Rather than providing the verification required by § 1692g(b), you simply reiterated that you previously sent a validation notice. This response:

- Does not constitute "verification of the debt" - Does not satisfy your obligation under § 1692g(b) - Does not authorize you to continue collection

Under § 1692g(b), you are prohibited from continuing collection activity until you provide proper verification. Your continued collection attempts constitute willful violations of federal law.

Credit report entries are not proof that I owe a debt, and using credit reports as "verification" is legally insufficient and potentially deceptive.

Credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion) are not courts of law. They do not verify the accuracy of information reported to them. They simply record what creditors report. A credit report entry merely shows that someone CLAIMED I owe money—it does not prove:

1. That I actually incurred the debt 2. That the amount is correct 3. That you have the legal right to collect 4. That the debt is not time-barred

Moreover, if you continue to report this disputed debt to credit bureaus WITHOUT noting that it is disputed, you are violating both the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8)) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3)).

I demand that you either provide actual documentation verifying this debt or remove it from my credit report immediately.

A partial payment does NOT constitute acknowledgment that I owe the full claimed amount, nor does it restart the statute of limitations under California law.

California Civil Code of Procedure § 360 is clear: the statute of limitations can only be revived by a NEW WRITTEN PROMISE to pay the debt. A mere payment, without a written acknowledgment of the debt's validity and promise to pay the remainder, does not restart the clock.

Furthermore:

1. If payment was made under duress, coercion, or deceptive collection tactics, it may be voidable 2. Payment "under protest" or "without prejudice" does not constitute acknowledgment 3. Payment before receiving proper validation may have been made in error 4. A payment to make harassment stop is not a legal admission of validity

I maintain my dispute of this debt. Any payment made does not waive my right to challenge the validity, amount, or collectibility of the alleged debt. You still have not provided proper verification as required by federal law.

The 30-day period under § 1692g affects only whether you must cease collection pending verification—it does NOT eliminate my right to dispute the debt.

The FDCPA's 30-day period has limited effect:

1. Within 30 days: If I dispute in writing, you must cease collection AND provide verification before resuming (§ 1692g(b))

2. After 30 days: I can still dispute. You do not have to cease collection while verifying, but you must respond to my dispute and you cannot misrepresent the debt's status.

Moreover: - The FDCPA never eliminates the right to dispute a debt - I retain all common law defenses regardless of timing - I can dispute with credit bureaus at any time - If the debt is invalid, it remains invalid regardless of whether I disputed within 30 days

The 30-day rule is about process, not substance. If this debt is not valid, not mine, or not collectible, the passage of 30 days does not make it so.

A generic affidavit or declaration from a debt collector employee does not constitute proper verification. Courts have consistently held that verification requires actual documentation of the debt, not merely someone's statement that the debt exists.

Your affidavit/declaration is insufficient because:

1. Lack of Personal Knowledge: The affiant likely has no personal knowledge of the original transaction. They only know what computer records show.

2. Hearsay: An affidavit stating "our records show" the debt exists is based on out-of-court statements (the records), not the affiant's direct knowledge.

3. No Original Documentation: An affidavit is not a substitute for the original contract, payment history, or chain of title.

Under the verification standard established in Chaudhry and its progeny, you must provide actual documentary evidence—not just someone saying the debt is valid. If you intend to sue, this affidavit would likely be challenged as insufficient under evidence rules.

Your threat to file a lawsuit may itself constitute an FDCPA violation. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5), a debt collector may not threaten legal action that is not intended or cannot legally be taken.

I question whether you can legitimately pursue this lawsuit because:

1. Statute of Limitations: If this debt is time-barred (see SOL calculation above), threatening suit on a time-barred debt is itself an FDCPA violation under § 1692e.

2. Lack of Documentation: Without proper documentation of the debt (original contract, chain of title, payment history), you would be unable to prove your case in court.

3. Standing: If you are a debt buyer, you must prove you actually own this specific debt with a complete chain of title.

4. Pattern of Empty Threats: If you routinely threaten suit without following through, this pattern itself violates the FDCPA.

If you file suit, I will assert all available defenses. I will also seek attorney's fees and counterclaim for any FDCPA violations, including this potentially empty threat.