The debtor disputed the amount of the debt in writing within 30 days of receiving the initial letter.
Haddad received an initial letter from the defendant law firm notifying him that he owed a delinquent condominium assessment bill.
For more detailed codes research information, including annotations and citations, please visit Westlaw.
], or any provision of Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any such provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with debt collection for purposes of this section.
Find Law Codes are provided courtesy of Thomson Reuters Westlaw, the industry-leading online legal research system.
For debtors who simply want to avoid paying, the verification standard gives them endless opportunities to demand more verification information, hold off collections indefinitely, and badger debt collectors with trivial or irrelevant demands.
Debt collectors will need to judge carefully about which demands for verification are frivolous and when the debt collector has met the burden of supplying sufficient verification.
(FDCPA), creating the most consumer-friendly verification standard ever.
The debtor replied by letter again, demanding substantiation of the beginning balance.
Rules of certain state supreme courts may consider this advertising and require us to advise you of such designation.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits abusive practices by debt collectors, You’ll also find each chapter of the fair debt collection act with easy navigation between pages here: fair debt collection practices act chapters Short Title – . Communication in connection with debt collection – Harassment or abuse – . (e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the law firm. The law firm failed this test because it did not provide information about the nature of the beginning balance that Haddad disputed and instead continued its collection efforts. In announcing this new standard for verification, the Sixth Circuit reviewed other Circuit’s rulings on the same issue and found that those courts had interpreted “verification” as requiring “nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed” and that “the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.” Cir. However, the Court was quick to point out that in each of those cases and in others the debt collectors had gone beyond the standard verification requirement by sending itemized statements to the debtors which provided sufficient information to allow the consumer to dispute the debt. Circuit held that the information provided to the consumer was sufficient verification because it provided enough information to put the consumer on notice that he was not the debtor when he realized that the last four digits of his social security number were different from that of the actual debtor.