Niederman, Midland Dateless Collection Letter FDCPA Class Action

If an official letter does not bear a date, but refers to “today” specifically, does that make it seem suspicious? The complaint for this class action alleges that Niederman, Stanzel & Lindsey, PLLC sent a debt collection letter the plaintiff in this class action, on behalf of Midland Credit Management, Inc., that withheld the important material term of the date intended as “today” from her, thereby confusing her and violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The class for this action is

• All individuals with addresses in New Hampshire
• To whom Niederman, Stanzel & Lindsey sent a collection letter attempting to collect a debt
• On behalf of Midland Credit Management,
• Providing an amount owed
• Based on a particular date range between a date certain and “today,”
• Without dating the collection letter,
• Where the letter was sent between April 9, 2021 and April 30, 2022.

Congress passed the FDCPA in 1977. The complaint quotes Congress as saying that the law was needed because of the “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors.”

In this case, a debt was allegedly incurred to Comenity Bank, for personal, household, or family purposes. The debt went into default and Midland appears to have bought it from Comenity and assigned Niederman to collect it.

Niederman sent the plaintiff in this case, Natsha Landgraf, a letter attempting to collect the debt. A copy of the letter was attached to the complaint when it was filed as Exhibit A. The complaint alleges that the letter was undated.

The letter listed the amount Landgraf purportedly owed on March 31, 2020, and then amounts charged or paid “[b]etween March 31, 2020 and today[,]” including interest and fees charged on the debt and amounts paid or credited (all of which were $0). Below this, it listed “[t]he total amount of the debt now[,]” which was $10,630.32.

The letter, the complaint alleges, misleads Landgraf as to the status of the debt, as it does not provide any way for her to determine when “today” or “now” might be.

Why is this confusing element a problem? “When they go astray, debt collectors often introduce a tacit element of confusion into their dunning letter to leave the consumer somewhat uninformed[,]” the complaint alleges. It adds, “This strategy helps debt collectors to achieve leverage over consumers by keeping key pieces of information away from them.”

This confusion can act in favor of the debt collector, the complaint claims: “When a consumer is faced with something less than the total story behind owing a debt, they often give up and choose to pay an unwarranted debt to avoid further trouble.” A lack of information can lead to “rash decision-making” on the part of the consumer.

According to the complaint, dating letters is such a basic business practice that omitting it “arouses suspicion as to [the] underlying motivations for doing so.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: FDCPA, Misleading or Confusing Debt Collection Letter, Unlawful Debt Collection