Topic: Initial communication Partial mini-miranda Q.

[maggie22]

Received dunning from a lawfirm.  This was the first communication.

The letter fails to include the statement: "This communication is from a Debt collector".

I see this as a violation of 15 USC 1692(e) (11).

Thoughts.

Thanks maggie

[cprems]

What State are you in?

Is it a consumer debt?

Is this from their Counsel or a 3rd party?

Does it state anything about them sending an initial letter or subsequent letter?

Have you ever disputed this alleged debt? Did you receive validation?

[maggie22]

The case itself is one the first from the later months in 2009.  It's too complicated with multiple players spanning over the years...for now I'm winning and my attorney thinks it's a pass so I will let the dogs lay for now.  I guess it may not be as simple as I originally thought.

[maggie22]

Ok, on advise I'll seek out the forums opinion.

This was most definately the first communication from this new lawfirm.

It odes not contain the statement that 'This communication is from a Debt Collector.

It does however contain the rest of the standard mini miranda which reads "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

I thought the FDCPA was perhaps more strict than it actually is in this regard.  However, our attorney who is generally game for anything, has advised me to let it go.

Is this a no brainer violation as I originally thought?  Can anyone provide case law assistance?

[cprems]

Does it give you 30 days to dispute the validity of this alleged debt?

Always send out a DV.

I would also remind them that this debt was disputed and that the OC knows it's disputed and they are trying to collect on an unvalidated debt.

[maggie22]

Yes, it does have the 30 day notice. 

Everything I'm finding seems to indicate they don't have to say this communication is from a debt collector, and can instead just use the This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any...

I had read the act as requiring both in the initial communication.

I don't think this new firm will actually pursue any further.

[cprems]

Not a violation I'd go after. It's hyper technical at best.

I was under the impression that they forgot the 30 day to validate clause.

[arnanda]

Unless it says in your state law.  Take a look at the wording:

"...and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, expect that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action." (emphasis added)

So you'd need to have something in your state law to say otherwise that they have to put it in all their notices OR if they don't put that statement in other letters they send you.