Should Collectors Change the Validation Notices into Pennsylvania ("The Debt Collection Drill")
Debt collectors face an historic onslaught of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) cases in Pennsylvania (and, to a lesser extent, in New Jersey), all of which allege that statutory language in collection letters which tracks the FDCPA somehow violates the law. The courts in these cases take the position that a consumer must be apprised that a dispute must be in writing to be effective, even though this position is contrary to the plain language of the FDCPA and rulings by the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. This issue has been addressed extensively in InsideARM:
- Preliminary Approval Sought for $2.2M Settlement in FCRA Case Regarding Pulling Credit Reports to Collect on Parking Tickets (Feb. 11, 2019)
- An Open Letter to the CFPB: Court Rulings on Validation Notice Hurt Consumers and Collectors (Jan. 22, 2019)
In this episode of The Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin directly address whether debt collectors should change notices sent into Pennsylvania and also discuss the impact of the settlement in the Crunch v. Marks decision along with the recent California out-of-statute disclosure.