This complaint brings suit against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). At issue are two debt collection letters Convergent is apparently sending around to consumers, which the complaint says are misleading or confusing and violates the FDCPA in several respects.
The class for this action is all consumers to whom Convergent sent collection letters substantially similar to the letters sent to the plaintiff in this case, which were sent on or after June 13, 2018.
The FDCPA requires that debt collectors must provide certain information in their approaches to consumer debtors. This information must be accurate, not confusing or misleading, and not overshadowed by other statements or conditions in the letter.
In this case, plaintiff Wesley M. Dias allegedly owed a debt, which was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. At some point, the debt was assigned to Convergent for collection.
Convergent sent Dias two collection letters, dated July 7, 2018 and August 8, 2018. The complaint alleges that a number of things in the letters violate the FDCPA.
The initial letter stated that Dias’s alleged debt was $2,477.78. The complaint claims that this sum is not the true amount of the debt. It also said that the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed is Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. The complaint claims that this is also not true, although it does not offer the correct name.
Also, the complaint claims that these two errors violate the FDCPA’s requirement that debt collectors not use any false, deceptive, or misleading means in trying to collect a debt.
Another requirement of the FDCPA is that the consumer be informed of the right to dispute the debt within thirty days of receipt of the letter. The consumer’s full rights are only preserved if the debt is disputed in writing. However, the complaint finds two problems with this part of the letter. The letter contains two different addresses for Convergent; it does not say which of these addresses the recipient should write to, to dispute the debt.
Also, the complaint claims that the notice of rights is not clear and conspicuous in the letter but buried in a paragraph on the second page. And since the notice of rights is contained in both letters, which were sent a month apart, it is not clear when the thirty days begins.
The complaint alleges that each of these counts is a violation of the FDCPA.