Collector - November 2017 - 46
Valid Disputes A look at dispute requirements in validation letters. T he Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute, and as such it requires careful reading by those who are subject to it. One area where this is abundantly clear is Section 809 of the FDCPA, which provides the requirements for validation notices. A main function of the validation notice is to inform consumers of their right to dispute the debt. A source of confusion is whether a validation notice violates the FDCPA if it requires a consumer to submit all disputes in writing. This confusion stems from the language in different portions of Section 809 of the FDCPA. Section 809(a)(4),(5) requires that a validation notice include statements that if the consumer disputes the debt in writing or makes a written request for the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector will cease all collection efforts until the verification or requested information is provided to the consumer. Section 809(a)(3) requires the validation notice to include a statement that unless the consumer disputes the validity of the debt within 30 days, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector. Unlike Sections 809(a)(4) and 809(a)(5), which plainly include a writing requirement, Section 809(a)(3) does not expressly include a writing requirement to dispute the validity of the debt. Due to this absence of an explicit writing requirement, courts disagree on whether the dispute referred to in Section (a) (3) concerning the validity of the debt must be made in writing to the debt collector. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits have found that a consumer may trigger the rights provided under subsection (a)(3) by either an oral or a written dispute. Applying this reasoning, several courts have found that language in a validation notice stating that a consumer can only dispute the debt in writing violates 46 the FDCPA. However, the Third Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion, instead finding that subsection (a)(3) must be read to require that a dispute must be in writing to be effective. For a more in-depth look at the issues and court decisions surrounding dispute language in validation notices, ACA International members can review the ACA SearchPoint™ document, #2331, Courts Analyze Addition of Writing Requirement to Validation Notices, at www.acainternational. org/searchpoint. Have you checked out the member-only ACA SearchPoint™ library? This valuable resource is filled with documents that put important compliance information related to the FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA, state laws and many other topics at your fingertips. To access it, visit www.acainternational. org/searchpoint. Calling All Writers! We're accepting articles from our readership.* Collector magazine invites credit and collection professionals of all levels into a community of experts who share their hard-won experience through in-depth process and data-driven articles. Send your article pitch or summary to Anne Rosso May at either » rosso@acainternational.org or » Anne Rosso May Collector Magazine 4040 West 70th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 *Qualifying participation for the Continuous Service Award ACAINTERNATIONAL.ORG
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.