Under the statute, a debt collector must send a consumer a
written notice containing, inter alia, a statement that if the consumer notifies
the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or
any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain
verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a
copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the
debt collector. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4)
(emphasis added).
In his allegations, plaintiff focuses on the fact that the
sentence of the Letter that begins, “If you notify this office in writing
within 30 days . . . .” fails to contain the words “that the debt, or any
portion thereof, is disputed.”
The flaw in plaintiff’s argument is that a consumer, as a
matter of law, does not specifically need to identify a dispute in writing, as
plaintiff claims, to exercise the right to verification. “[U]nder the FDCPA,
requesting verification is sufficient to trigger a debt collector’s
verification obligations. ‘Dispute’ is a term of art in FDCPA parlance that
means a request to verify the existence of a
debt.” Gruber v. Creditors’ Protection Service, No. 12-cv-1243, 2013 WL
2072976, at *2 (E.D. Wis. May 14, 2013) (citing DeKoven v. Plaza Assocs.,
599 F.3d 578, 582 (7th Cir. 2010)). Because the consumer need not include the
actual word “dispute” in a request for verification, defendant’s failure to
instruct the consumer to do so is inconsequential.
