Think of a violation of the FDCPA is an automatic $ 1,000? Think again!

Think of a violation of the FDCPA is an automatic 1K?
Think again!

Is a common misconception perpetuated in many Internet discussion forums that when a debt collector violates equal to automatic recognition of 1.000,00 € for affected consumers. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which is codified in 15 USC 1692 et seq. Auditors make a claim for damages and compensation is expected to be a debt collectorfound in violation of the FDCPA, however, this does not mean that is $ 1,000.00 or more and it's all so easy. In an effort to provide better information for the masses, Credit Information Resources published a series of articles on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act The first article will discuss violation (s) of the Fair Debt Practices Act Collection, and its effects.

First let's look at the correspondingpart of the FDCPA which deals with violations, which is 15 USC 1692k:

(A) the amount of damages

Except as otherwise provided in this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this chapter with respect to any person is responsible for that person in an amount equal to the sum of-

(1) actual damages suffered by the subject, as a result of such failure;

(2)

(A) for the action of individual damage, additionalthe court may allow, but not exceeding $ 1.000;

As noted above, the statute is clear on this issue. However, many Internet discussion forums send incorrect information to ignorant borrowers, ie if a debt collector violated then a violation entitles the defendant to an automatic $ 1,000, regardless of the nature and number of violations. The correct reading is that the provision allows the court to award any person affected by the debt-enforcementdamages up to $ 1,000.00.

non-discretionary statutory damages, according to a Senate report, which supports this view. "A debt collector violates the law is liable for additional damages the court sees fit, not exceeding € 1,000. In assessing damages, the court must take into account the nature of the violation, degree arbitrariness, and the debt collector. persistence "A district court issued an opinion stating:" One For the purposes of the compensation law is to create an incentive for law enforcement. "

Unfortunately, the available legislative history of the FDCPA is unclear and inconsistent. It suggests, however, that Congress did not intend for the allocation of the right to be discretionary unless the violation of activation is lower. Moreover, the legislative history also suggests that legal individual damages must not be assigned or may be of value, only if the violation is technical.

L '> Law requires judges to consider four factors in determining the amount of liability in an individual stock. It also allows the court to take into account other relevant factors to determine the violation of the law (s) amount. The four factors the court must consider are:

• purpose;
• Frequency;
• Persistence and
• The nature of the breach of the collector.

The determination of statutory damages may involve considerable discretionuntil all the judges to develop specific criteria for the four factors necessary to take into account. fundamental questions, for example, is the top prize of $ 1,000 reserved for severe cases or when it is appropriate to a technical violation occurs only?

So you have to wonder, given the debt collector violated the FDCPA is not it? If you determine that the debt collector may be violating a provision of the FDCPA, it was a violation of asimple technical violation that may or may not have been intentional, or was it a flagrant and deliberate violation? Recently, a case in the Western District of Michigan, involved a debtor who sued a debt collector and its employees to use available "Caller ID" when calling the debtor. The judge, in particular, the Hon. Ellen S. Carmody said

"Plaintiff alleges that the CSI acted to prevent your phone number appears in the call device. Therefore, whenThe defendant asked plaintiff, calling device ID of the actor allegedly displayed "not available" instead of the phone number of the defendant. Even if the allegations true actor, the Court can not discern how this is "fake" or "misleading." Instead, the device for displaying a caller ID of the actor of the word "unavailable" was entirely accurate. The defendant would have acted to make available telephone number for caller identification devices people are calling. This wasaccurately disclosed to the applicant when the caller ID device displays the word "unavailable." The Court does not discern the false and deceptive actions of the defendant. "

See Glover v. Customer Services, Inc., et al WDMI No. 1:07-CV-81.

So when it comes to determining if a violation, you must also take into account the gravity of the violation. In addition, a debtor who believes that he / she was the victim of a violation of the FDCPA should also consider whether it is only a violation, or ifis repetitive, and what are the possible damage of the law might be.

Many Internet discussion forums in a violation state, regardless of its severity, the debtor is entitled to $ 1,000.00. As mentioned above, and as a process more clearly below, which is not the case. The debtor does not want to be in a courtroom with a judge with a violation unless it is well known, the courts do not appreciate people wasting time. Additional factors provided by the judges forreduce the amount of legal recognition are:

• A single violation;
• The technical nature of the violation;
• Cessation of the violation, when he first brought to the attention of the collector;
• A collector looking to meet to obtain legal advice;
• Lack of persistent and frequent violations;
• The lack of prejudice of consumers;
• No intent to mislead or harass consumers.

All this must be takenconsideration if and when, as a debtor decides to send a letter of intent to demand and / or file a lawsuit as a pro se party. The research, said the case not only in the Internet discussion forum. If the judges consider all these factors in the decision, because you should not as a plaintiff?