EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
There are probably any number of reasons that would lead a collection operation to decide to use its own version of the Model Validation Notice, and many of those reasons are probably legitimate. One of the areas that has caused some debate is the use of dates on the MVN. The original version published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did not have a date on it to indicate when it was mailed, and that led to a number of lawsuits being filed against collection operations. The other area of the MVN where dates matter are the itemization table and the dispute notification. Both sections of the MVN published by the CFPB included dates. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota federal court for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it sent its own version of the MVN to the plaintiff, and the notice did not include an itemization date or a date to indicate when the window to dispute the debt or seek validation expired.
The background: The plaintiff received an initial notice from the defendant, seeking to collect on an unpaid debt. The notice contained the same components as the CFPB’s Model Validation Notice, but the format and layout was different. The itemization table did indicate that interest had been added to the total amount of the debt, but the notice failed to inform the plaintiff that interest was continuing to accrue on the debt. This led the plaintiff to be uncertain as to whether paying “the total amount of the debt” would satisfy her debt obligation.
- The notice also failed to include an itemization date, which did not allow the plaintiff to be informed when the alleged debt was incurred and the time period during which the interest had accrued, according to the complaint.
- The portion of the notice informing the plaintiff of her right to seek validation of the debt or to dispute all or a portion of the debt told her to “call or write us with 30 days of this letter” to dispute all or a portion of the debt and that if she wrote “to us within 30 days of this letter” that collection activity would cease until the debt was validated. The Model Validation Notice used specific dates instead of a 30-day window. The defendant’s wording was “ambiguous, misleading, and confusing” because 30 days could mean 30 days from the date of the notice or 30 days from when the plaintiff received the notice, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else living in Minnesota who received an initial letter from the defendant that included some amount of interest that had accrued on the debt and failed to include a notification that interest was continuing to accrue.
Read the complaint. Check out the notice
