I recently posted about how I noticed some discrepancies in a prior [attempt] validation I received from PRA, which I noticed "D3" in the cover letter — which I later identified as an internal template number for the cover letter in PRA's response.
I had sent them a renewed [loaded] packet that consisted of a DV, a Notice of Documented Violations, and a C&D.
I basically called them out not only in their prior notice, but directly using their documents against them, and tied it to the CFPB v. PRA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00110 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2023):
I received a new validation, which was identical to the last one, and they basically proved that I was right about one of the items. At the very end of the letter, they added:
Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you…unless if you made a payment
…and then added:
…but even if that were the case, we still will not sue you.
I’m not gonna lie, I actually laughed when I read that.
For context, I had already been prepping for them to play it safe (using scenarios with ParkerGPT) — I was ready to:
Re-disputed directly with all 3 bureaus (as soon as I noticed the "consumer disputes" remark and how the very next day they completed the "investigation"
Filed a CFPB complaint with a full timeline (earlier today)
So now I’m sitting here like…okay, you’ve [PRA] basically put in writing you’re not suing.
My question is:
How would you guys handle this next step?
Do I leverage everything I’ve already documented + the new stuff (calls after delivery, same weak validation, CRA behavior) into a deletion + settlement demand?
Curious how others would play this.