A District Court judge in Massachusetts has dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit accusing a collection agency of continuing to collect after receiving a verification request, ruling that such a request pauses collection only on the account the consumer actually disputed.
The background: The case turned on two collection letters that referenced two different account numbers.
- Two years ago, the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter seeking $494.87 on an account ending in 7420 that originated with a credit union.
- Weeks later, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and disputed the debt, expressly referencing that letter, the 7420 account details, and the credit union as the source of the obligation.
- A few months after that, the defendant sent a second letter. That one sought $296.60 on an account ending in 1522, described as a Platinum Secured account originated by a lender.
- The plaintiff, representing himself, filed a small claims action in state court that was later removed to federal court, claiming the second letter amounted to continued collection after a verification request, in violation of Sections 1692g(b), 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA and the state debt collection regulation at 940 CMR 7.08.
- The plaintiff initially argued the defendant had used internal account numbers “so as to suggest the existence of multiple or separate accounts, despite there being only one underlying debt.”
- After the defendant laid out the differences between the two accounts in its motion papers, the plaintiff withdrew that allegation and conceded the agency was handling more than one of his accounts. In doing so, he identified the debt at issue as an account ending in 1553, a third reference number.
The ruling: Judge Margaret R. Guzman of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the verification request and the later letter simply did not concern the same debt.
- Judge Guzman wrote that a verification request under Section 1692g(b) “pertains to a single account contested by the debtor, it does not pause the collection on all other accounts,” and that a debtor must request verification separately for each account being disputed. The judge read the state regulation the same way.
- The letters, the judge said, were “clear on their face” that the reference numbers and itemization dates pointed to two different accounts, which nullified the claim that the agency had kept collecting on the disputed debt.
- Because the plaintiff was representing himself, the judge interpreted the complaint liberally, but noted that even a liberally read pleading has to allege facts making a claim plausible rather than merely possible.
- The judge also observed that verification itself is not a heavy lift, requiring confirmation of the amount owed and the identity of the creditor, relayed back to the consumer.
- A remaining count that alleged nothing beyond the statutory violations already rejected fell along with them, and the case was dismissed.
