Failure to give proper notice of thirty-day dispute period
Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because abusive debt collection practices are not only wrong; they also contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, marital instability, the loss of jobs, and invasions of privacy. The complaint for this class action alleges that SM Law, PC violated the FDCPA by overshadowing a required notice of the consumers’ right to dispute the debt.
The complaint for this class action alleges that Duane Morris, LLP and two of its attorneys, Ruth P. Clayton and Danielle Rundlett Burns, have violated two debt collection laws. The laws are the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), both of which deal with consumer debt. The allegations include incorrect wording, false statements, and communicating with the debtor rather than the representing attorney.
This class action is brought against Asset Recovery Associates, or ARA, and the complaint’s allegations read like a comic book account of the kind of behavior the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits. The complaint doesn’t stop there, however. It claims that ARA’s behavior and its use of telephone communication for its fraudulent purposes are also violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
While companies owed debts have certain rights, the behavior of third-party debt collectors is highly regulated, thanks to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The complaint for this class action claims that debt collector Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. did not adhere to proper practices when it attempted to collect a debt from the plaintiff Chavez in this case. Specifically, its initial letter did not inform Chavez that he had thirty days to dispute the debt, and in a follow-up telephone message it did not give him the “mini-Miranda” warning.