You not gonna believe this

I would advise against filing a lawsuit at this time. They already apologized so there would be an excelllent chance that they would use the inadvertent mistake routine and win.

As you know I am a strong proponent of filing lawsuits against debt collectors but one does need to pick and choose his battles and I don't think this one is ripe for the picking just yet.

 

I agree with the Wrench on this one.

I don't see a "ton of violations." I see a "bona-fide error" that they corrected as soon as they were made aware of.

I see that they sent a couple of letters, which isn't a crime.

They haven't reported it on your credit report and they aren't calling you or your place of employment so they aren't continuing collection without validation. I assume that the letters contained the required information so they aren't in violation (although they could be if you want to look for overshadowing language or missing information).

If they sent you another letter with a 30-day notice, it sounds like they are just disorganized and confused (enabling the bona-fide error defense).

This one isn't quite ripe, IMO.

 

Bona-fide error at it's best applicability. Consider the difference between negligent and intentional acts. A judge may consider this reckless behavior but, I doubt it. In any event, it is a strict liability standard but, even if BE didn't work, you'd only get the statutory minimum.

 

Another approach is that you can file a claim with your Attorney General's office (or the finance part of the AG's Office) in your state. I don't see this dicussed much on the boards, but i've had excellent results from my AG's office. They will not represent you in a legal proceeding, but many offices are more than willing to look over your documentation and inform the CA that they are not in compliance with state laws. If you ever do appear in court with this CA, there is nothing wrong with having a scolding letter from the state AG's office!

 

I disagree with ccbob and Creditwren. There is no Bona Fide Error on the second violation - only on the first.

One of the elements of a Bona Fide Error Defense is that the creditor has procedures in place to prevent the violation and somehow the violation happened anyway.

OK, so I will excuse the new employee's unfamiliarity with FDCPA. The supervisor intervened and supposedly taught the new employee. And what did this supervisor do to show intent to comply with the same section of FDCPA that the new employee violated - continued collection activity in the face of a valid, unanswered VOD? Apparently nothing, since the company continued dunning in the face of being called on the carpet for it.

My summons would already be on the way.

 

Whether to file a lawsuit and when is always a matter of personal choice among other things. While one person may be willing to plump down $350 at every drop of the hat others are not so inclined. Federal judges are also not inclined to grant judgment when the Plaintiff has only one rather small or comparatively insignificant complaint.

FDCPA was designed to be a shield, not a sword. This is an important point. A good defense attorney might easily shoot down a suit with only one cause of action very quickly. In my personal opinion, (for whatever that might be worth) Plaintiffs are better advised not to go to file lawsuits on debt collectors unless they have at least 5 or more causes of action. That way, if the attorney for the defense is successful in defending against some of the complaints he won't be so likely to successfully defend against all of them.

Just my personal opinion.

 

As an alternative viewpoint to cap1's, I look at FDCPA as both a sword and a shield.

Judges will decide a case on the merits of the case. FDCPA is a strict liability statute, meaning once there is a violation, the cause of action is there. Waiting for five or ten additional causes of action does not make a Judge any more or less likely to find in your favor. After all, does a creditor wait until they have five or ten claims against you to file suit? Of course not - one is enough. Looking through the various Law Books we see that many of the more important cases involved a single cause of action.

Besides, filing suit on cause of action "A" clears the deck for your ability to file suit on Cause of Action "B", since a suit has to encompass all outstanding violations. Sometimes a creditor is more likely to settle a large claim with a barrage of suits for violation facing it rather than just one.

Cap1sucks is right though - this is a matter of style and belief. No one answer is correct for all.

 

Unfortunately, fee shifting statutes, like § 362(h), have given debtors an opportunity to use the statute as a sword rather than a shield, to courtsâ?? dismay. See McHenry, 179 B.R. at 169 (§ 362 â??should not be used as a swordâ? for the debtorsâ?? enrichment);

Appellant maintains that the $1,000 attorneysâ?? fees were not recoverable because they resulted, not from any injury caused by the stay violation, but rather from Debtorâ??s improper use of § 362(h) as a sword rather than a shield,

In Young v. Citicorp Retail Services, Inc., 191 the District Court of Connecticut stated that the FDCPA cannot be affirmatively used as a â??sword by [debtors] and not as the shield that Congress intended it to be.