Woman Files Lawsuit Challenging Debt Collection Letter Language

A woman has filed a lawsuit over debt collection letter language she says was confusing and deceptive as described in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Plaintiff Jacqueli M. received a debt collection letter from defendant Convergent Outsourcing Inc. that said, “Creditor: Verizon.” According to the debt collection letter language lawsuit, the letter does not identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed because there is no business simply named “Verizon” that is registered with the New York State, Department of State, Division of Corporations.

Ninety-one different entries registered in the state begin with “Verizon” in their legal names, she says.

According to FDCPA regulations, a collection letter is considered deceptive if the “least sophisticated consumer” could interpret two or more meanings from the verbiage, rendering the letter inaccurate.

Debt collectors are required to identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed and to convey that information clearly. None of the information in debt collection letter language should be confusing, contradictory or leave the reader with an uncertain message.

“The least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed,” claims the debt collection letter language lawsuit.

Debt Collection Letter Language Complicated by Expired Debt

If the letter is in reference to a cell phone’s Verizon Wireless Services bill, Jacqueli argues the statute of limitations had expired by the time the letter was sent. The statute of limitations for the debt is two years, which began to accrue prior to 2015.

According to the debt collection letter language, a partial payment settlement is offered, but making any payment on an expired debt may result in the revival of the “otherwise time-barred debt.”

Jacqueli says the letter does not alert her that partial payment could reactivate the debt, nor does it indicate whether legal action could be sought to attempt to recover the debt. The FDCPA bars debt collections from making “false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.”

This debt collection letter language allegedly violates the FDCPA, according to the plaintiff. She says more than 35 people in New York have received similar attempts to collect a time-barred debt for cell phone services. Jacqueli seeks class action status on her complaint to include all of those with similar claims against Convergent Outsourcing Inc.

In asking for class action status, the debt collection letter language lawsuit expresses concern that separate prosecuting actions by individual plaintiffs would risk inconsistency in their outcomes at trial. The complaint also indicates that Convergent Outsourcing’s conduct equally violated the FDCPA with its communications to all members of the proposed Class, who can present common proof.

The Debt Collection Letter Language Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-07281-RRM-RLM in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Join a Free New York Unfair Debt Collection Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you live in New York and a lender or debt collector engaged in unfair debt collection practices, you may have a legal claim and could be owed compensation for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now

DISCLAIMER: Debt collection itself is not illegal. However, debt collection firms collecting on consumer debts must adhere to the FDCPA. Even though debt attorneys are investigating these companies, their debt collection practices may be legal.