Misleading or Confusing Debt Collection Letter
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act tries to ensure that consumer debtors have accurate information so that they can make the best decisions possible about when and how to pay their debt. This complaint claims that the letter from Stevens Business Services, Inc. to consumer debtors does not permit that because it is unclear about future increases in the amount of the debt.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. appears periodically as a defendant in debt collection cases. In this case, the complaint alleges that a debt collection letter sent by the company was misleading. The debt was time-barred, but the complaint claims that the letter did not give full information on that, as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Fair Debt Collection Pratices Act (FDCPA) tries to protect consumers from misinformation, undue pressure, and deception, among other things. This complaint claims that debt collectors Solomon and Solomon, PC violated the law by falsely implying in their collection letters that consumer debtors would be better off financially in paying their debts immediately.
If you believe you owe $250 to a creditor, but the debt collector says you owe over $300, what can you do? The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) says you can dispute a portion of a debt. But the complaint for this class action alleges that a collection letter from Rosenthal Morgan and Thomas, Inc. doesn’t properly inform debtors of this right.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) tries to protect consumers from abusive, unfair, or misleading debt collection activites by third-party debt collectors. The debt collection letter from Rubin Lublin, LLC described by the complaint for this class action sounds like it’s all three—abusive, unfair, and misleading. Among other things, it contains a demand that overshadows the plaintiff's rights, threatens him with a lawsuit that cannot legally be brought, and pressures him to make a payment that would make the lawsuit possible again.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) tries to ensure that consumers have accurate information about their rights and their debts, and that all information is clear, so that consumers can make the best possible decisions about when and how to pay their debts. The complaint for this class action claims that debt collector McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. violated the law by failing to make clear the amount of the debt and whether or not that amount is still increasing.
The complaint for this class action claims that debt collector Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, failed to make plain the current creditor to whom debts are owed in its debt collection letters to consumers. This complaint alleges that this is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) seeks to provide consumers with clarity about what they owe and what their rights are under the law. The complaint for this class action claims that Carson Smithfield, LLC violated the law by sending a second debt collection letter that overshadowed information contained in the first.
The complaint for this class action claims that the debt collection letter sent out by Forster & Garbus was confusing about the total amount of the debt due and the minimum payment needed to stop collection actions. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that consumer debt collection letters be clear and unambiguous and provide certain information, and the complaint points out several ways in which the Forster & Garbus fails to meet these requirements.
Is a debt collector responsible if a consumer is confused by general information on its website? The complaint for this class action claims that CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is, because it sent a debt collection letter that specifically directed the recipient to its website for information.