Continued collection when an account is not verified but reassigned?

This entry came from Bud Hibbs'website. This is a comment about NCO Financial Systems and a Consumer Comment made by someone who allegedly asked for validation and apparently wanted the CA to "quit playing on their phone" (all calls are inconvenient) per the FDCPA:

Date: December 23, 2006

I received correspondence from NCO attempting to collect a charged off debt from Capital One. I immediately sent them a validation letter. In this letter I requested that no telephone contact be made and contact was only to be in writing by US Postal mail. Today I received correspondence from Forster & Garbus that Capital One Bank has referred the account to them with a notation that I wished all communications to cease and desist. Since they cannot communicate they are left with no alternative but to institute a lawsuit as instructed by their client. I do not owe what they claim I owe and I'm not paying them a dime until I get validation of the debt. I am tired of being threatened with lawsuits from these jerks with no validation of the debt.

NCO apparently sent the account back to CapOne who then decided it was time for the sh*t to hit the fan...eh...sue for the debt.

Some remarks here:

1.) While there are questions often raised asking if lawsuit can be filed if timely validation was requested and has not yet been received, this is apparently not the case here. NCO appears to have returned the account to CapOne, who then retained Foster & Garbus to litigate the matter.

NCO was within their rights under Federal law (and almost all state laws) to not get validation but to simply return the account to the client. So, no FDCPA violation here.

2.) Forster and Garbus (lovely "sharks"...eh...fine members of the legal profession and the creditors' rights bar...)is wrong here: This was NOT a full C&D (Cease and Desist) letter, but a DV with the "inconvenience clause" and they should have known that. Therefore F&G made a false and misleading statement by saying that one had been issued and therefore there was no choice but to file suit.

2a.)There is also no indication this consumer timely DV'd Forster and Garbus themselves once F&G got the collection account. If the consumer did not, then it can be reasonably assumed that a charge of "continued collection activity" would not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

3.) A clear violation here is that F&G has threatened to file suit. Yet apparently they had not yet done so despite repeated collection attempts. There is a good chance the consumer here could claim that F&G was threatening an action they were not intending to take.