A class-action lawsuit has been filed against a Pennsylvania law firm for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not being clear enough in a collection letter about the difference between disputing a debt and requesting the name of the original creditor.
A copy of the complaint in Davis v. Tsarouhis Law Group, LLC can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter. The letter included the following passage:
Unless you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, within 30 days after receipt of this notice, the debt will be assumed to be valid by our offices. If you notify our offices in writing within 30 days of receipt of this notice, that the debt or any portion thereof is disputed, our offices will provide you with verification of the debt or copy of the Judgment against you, and a copy of such verification of judgment will be mailed to you by our offices.
The suit seeks to include anyone in Pennsylvania who received a letter from the defendant that included similar language.
In the complaint, the plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(3) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, which prohibit the use of false or misleading representations when collecting on a debt, including that the communication is from an attorney, and Section 1692g(a)(5), which requires collectors inform individuals that if a written request is made within 30 days, the collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor, if it is different from the current creditor.
The letter sent to the plaintiff references a “Creditor.”
The defendant is accused of allegedly preventing the plaintiff from getting the “fully required legal disclosure,” because, the defendant “appears to say that if the consumer disputes the debt in writing, the debt collector will choose whether to obtain verification of the debt or to provide the name and address of the original creditor.”