Is there a double standard when it comes to comparing what collectors need to show when suing a consumer for an unpaid debt and what they need to show when that consumer disputes a debt? Possibly, but that is not the grounds for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, according to a District Court judge in New York, who has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Sandoval v. Credit Corp Solutions d/b/a Tasman Credit and Kirschenbaum & Phillips can be accessed by clicking here.
While the Second Circuit Court of Appeals may not have expressly laid out what collectors need to provide when a request for verification has been submitted, providing a written statement that the amount being demanded is what the creditor claims is owed is usually sufficient, noted Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
“Although plaintiff asserts that the FDCPA should require a creditor to ‘provide to a consumer the same level of documentation of the debt which would be necessary to prevail in litigation to collect the debt,’ plaintiff does not cite to any authority and the court is unaware of any, entitling debtors the right under the FDCPA to demand specific types of documents from creditors when seeking validation of a debt,” Judge Matsumoto wrote.