Maybe the tide of lawsuits related to the dispute notification in validation notices in the Third Circuit is finally turning in favor of the credit and collection industry.
A District Court judge in New Jersey has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against a collection agency for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using the statutory dispute notice language in a collection letter.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Ulrich v. Diversified Consultants International can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant in regards to an unpaid cell phone bill. The letter contained the following passage:
Unless you notify this office within 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 of this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA by not mentioning in the first sentence that the dispute must be filed in writing and by implying that the requirement that the dispute notice be filed in writing was voluntary by starting the second sentence with “If you notify…”
But Judge Freda Wolfson of the District Court for the District of New Jersey wasn’t having any of it.
“The least sophisticated debtor standard does not offer relief to the willfully blind or those who act carelessly,” Judge Wolfson wrote. “The use of the word ‘if’ in the validation notice, as it was used here, would not confuse a consumer as to how to dispute the debt because the Letter does not suggest that a debtor may dispute the debt in any other method besides the in-writing requirement.”
