This is one of those cases where, even when a collection agency writes what the law proscribes, a judge can still say it confused the least sophisticated consumer.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has denied a request for summary judgment in a case where a plaintiff is accusing a collection agency of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the validation notice did not effectively communicate that a dispute must be filed in writing.
A copy of the ruling in Durnell v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter, which included the following passage:
Unless you notify this office within thirty (30) days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within (30) days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
In its argument, the defendant noted it had mirrored the statutory language of the FDCPA, which should amount to properly conveying how the debt must be disputed.
But in looking at another case in the Third Circuit — Wilson v. Quadramed Corp — Judge Anita Brody noted that Wilson requires more “than the mere inclusion of the statutory debt validation notice in the debt collection letter-the required notice must also be conveyed effectively to the debtor.”
So while the language in the letter may have copied what the FDCPA said collectors should say, the language did “not provide a clear directive to the debtor that a dispute must be in writing,” Judge Brody ruled, invoking another precedent — Graziano v. Harrison.
“The least sophisticated debtor could reasonably believe that s/he could orally dispute the debt, but that ‘if’ s/he wanted the office to obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and provide the name and address of the original creditor, then s/he would have to put the request in writing,” Judge Brody wrote. “Consequently, the least sophisticated debtor could reasonably interpret the validation notice to allow a debtor to dispute the debt either orally or in writing.”
