Misleading or Confusing Debt Collection Letter
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.
Imagine you rent a car for a day and return it without incident. Three months later, out of the blue, you’re dunned by a debt collector for over $1,300 worth of damage to the car. The complaint for this class action claims that this kind of thing has happened to many people who rented from Hertz Corporation rental companies, where the first they hear of “damage” is a letter from debt collector Viking Billing Service.
The complaint for this class action brings suit under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), for debt collection letters to the two plaintiffs in this case that the complaint alleges were misleading and deceptive. One concerns a debt that was discharged in bankruptcy; the other concerns a misleading statement about the “Last Activity Date.”
Debt collectors know many ways to mislead consumers and to pressure them into paying their debts, sometimes at the cost of other needed expenses. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was passed, among other things, to try to stop debt collectors from misleading consumers. The complaint for this class action alleges that Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC sent a letter to consumer debtors which violates the FDCPA.
The complaint for this class action takes issue with a rather odd collection letter, which consists mostly of a single paragraph typed nearly entirely in capital letters—a practice sometimes identified as shouting. The letter is from Christal & Smith Enterprises, Inc., which does business as JVS Group, Inc. The complaint claims that the information in the letter is not just deceptive and misleading but also intended to be demeaning to the recipient, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). It then defines a class that is based on a different violation of the FDCPA, the failure to name the current creditor.
What’s wrong with telling a mortgage borrower that if they don’t pay their arrears, their loan will be accelerated? The complaint for this class action alleges that the debt collector, Seterus, Inc., was merely pressuring the borrowers, that it never intended to accelerate the loan and would accept any monthly amount on the arrears instead. The statement is therefore deceptive and misleading, and designed merely to pressure the borrowers.