Misleading or Confusing Debt Collection Letter
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) tries to prevent abusive or misleading practices by third-party debt collectors who collect debts from consumers. The complaint for this class action says that Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC does not provide adequate information about disputing debts in its collection letters and even discourages consumers from disputing the debts.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that certain information must be conveyed to consumers up front during attempts at collection. This information must not just be stated; it must be stated clearly, so that consumers are not confused, and sometimes conspicuously, so that consumers do not miss important information. This complaint alleges that Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC did not make its validation notice either clear or conspicuous.
The complaint for this class action takes issue with the amount of debt and minimum payment due as set forth in a debt collection letter from Client Services, Inc., as well as other information. The law it cites is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
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 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) tries to ensure that consumer debtors are provided with all the information they need to make informed choices and are not confused or misled. The complaint for this class action alleges that Central Credit Services, LLC (CCS) violates the FDCPA because its deadline for special offers appears to conflict with the consumer’s right to verification of the debt.
When evaluating a debt collection letter under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the normal standard for whether a debt collector has made things clear is whether the “least sophisticated consumer” would understand the meaning or be confused by it. Most of this complaint concerns allegations that a debt collection letter sent out by Capital Management Services, LP is not as clear as required by the law.
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.
The complaint for this class action takes issue with a number of items in a debt collection letter sent by United Tranzactions, LLC. The complaint says these items, explained below, violate both the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).
State laws limit how long a consumer may be sued over a debt. Once that time period has expired, debt collectors cannot sue to collect. However, if the consumer makes a payment after that, the right to sue may be revived. The complaint for this class action alleges that Convergent Outsourcing violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it did not warn consumers with expired debts that any payment they made might revive its right to sue them.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) sets forth rules for the collection of consumer debts by third-pary debt collectors. The complaint for this class action claims that Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC violated the FDCPA because the use of the word “immediately” twice in the initial communication letter allegedly overshadows the allowance of a thirty-day period to dispute the debt.