A class-action complaint has been filed against a collector for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it mentioned at the top of a collection letter that the letter’s recipient could call the collector for further assistance, while disclosing at the bottom of the letter that if the recipient wanted to dispute the debt, it had to be done in writing. The allegedly contradictory statements were misleading and confusing to the individual, according to the complaint.
A copy of the complaint, in the case of Vilchez v. Resurgent Capital Services and LVNV Funding can be accessed by clicking here.
The complaint seeks to include anyone in New Jersey — where the complaint was filed — who received a similar letter from the defendant.
Claiming that the defendant violated Section 1692e(10) and Section 1692g of the FDCPA by sending the letter to the plaintiff, which said at the top: “Resurgent Capital Services L.P. manages the above referenced account for LVNV Funding LLC and has initiated a review of the inquiry recently received either directly or from Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, the current servicer of this account.
For further assistance, please contact one of our Customer Service Representatives toll-free at 1-866-464-1187.”
At the bottom of the letter was the dispute notification disclosure, saying that the plaintiff had 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, as long as the dispute was filed in writing.
The plaintiff claims that the two statements are contradictory because the the letter starts by saying the defendant has “initiated a review of the inquiry recently received,” which implies that the “account is already under review” even though the bottom of the letter states that the plaintiff has 30 days to dispute the debt. Only including a phone number in the first paragraph of the letter “misleads the consumer by implying that a phone call is sufficient to discuss all facets of the account including disputing the debt,” according to the complaint.
Finally, referencing Pressler, Felt & Warshaw was misleading because it caused the plaintiff to not know the role that the defendant had in managing the account.
