These days, collectors are being accused as much for what they do not say in collection letters as what they do say. Take, for instance, a case out of the District Court for the District of Connecticut, in which a judge has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit because it said in a letter what would happen if a consumer disputed a debt in writing, but never said what would happen if the consumer disputed the debt orally.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Faherty v. D&A Services is available by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter included the following disclosure:
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 after 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 with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
If you dispute the debt, or any part thereof, or request the name and address of the original creditor in writing within the thirty-day period, the law requires our firm to suspend our efforts to collect the debt until we mail the requested information to you.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA because it failed to communicate that collection efforts on the account would continue if the plaintiff chose to dispute the debt verbally instead of doing so in writing. The information about suspending the collection efforts is not required under the FDCPA, but because the defendant chose to make the disclosure, it was obligated to clarify that a verbal dispute would not trigger the suspension of collection efforts, the plaintiff claimed.
Referring to the argument as a “novel proposition,” Judge Kari Dooley of the District Court for the District of Connecticut said that there was no “sound basis” to look at the letter as being confusing or ambiguous “in any way” and ruled that the plaintiff failed to state her claim.
