Rendered unable to argue that she was confused about whether a debt dispute could be made in writing or over the phone thanks to a recent ruling, a plaintiff was also unsuccessful in claiming that the phrase “Validation Notification” at the top of the letter overshadowed her right to dispute the debt, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled.
A copy of the ruling in the case of James v. Windham Professionals can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, which included the following disclosure, “If you have any questions you may contact an account representative at 1-855-296-6385.” She filed suit, alleging the statement violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it contradicted the requirement — within the Third Circuit at the time — that a dispute must be made in writing. A District Court judge granted a motion to dismiss by the defendant, which was appealed. The Third Circuit’s ruling in Riccio v. Sentry Credit in March did away with the written dispute requirement, and forced the plaintiff in this case to make another argument; that including the phrase “Validation Notification” at the top of the letter was misleading because it falsely represented that the debt had been deemed valid.
But the Appeals Court went as far as the first sentence in the letter to illustrate why the plaintiff’s argument was not going to be successful.
The first sentence of the letter said that the defendant would assume the debt valid unless the plaintiff disputed its validity within thirty days, which is all a least sophisticated consumer should need to understand that the debt has not already been deemed to be valid.
