Section 807 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e, provides, in part, as follows:
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
"11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector . . . ."
A Sacramento California second notice to a debt collector of false or misleading misrepresentations in collection activities addresses the issue of a debt collector failing to disclose to the debtor in subsequent communication that a previous letter requesting information regarding an alleged debt was from a debt collector. This type of situation is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FD CPA), which requires debt collectors to provide accurate and transparent information to debtors. In this notice, the debtor should clearly state their complaint regarding the debt collector's actions. They should emphasize that the initial letter requesting information regarding the alleged debt did not explicitly inform them that it was from a debt collector. It is crucial to include specific details such as the date of the initial letter, the contents of the letter, and any misleading or false representations made within it. Some potential variations or subtypes of this second notice include: 1. Sacramento California Second Notice to Debt Collector of False or Misleading Misrepresentations in Collection Activities — Lack of Disclosure in Initial Letter: This notice addresses situations in which the debt collector fails to disclose their identity as a debt collector in the initial letter itself. 2. Sacramento California Second Notice to Debt Collector of False or Misleading Misrepresentations in Collection Activities — Omission of Disclosure in Subsequent Communication: This notice points out instances where the debt collector did not disclose in subsequent communications that the initial letter was indeed from a debt collector, leading to confusion or misunderstanding. 3. Sacramento California Second Notice to Debt Collector of False or Misleading Misrepresentations in Collection Activities — Misleading Language or Representations: In this notice, the debtor highlights specific misleading or false language used by the debt collector in the initial letter or subsequent communication. Regardless of the subtype, it is imperative to clearly state the violation of the FD CPA and express the debtor's expectation for corrective action from the debt collector.A Sacramento California second notice to a debt collector of false or misleading misrepresentations in collection activities addresses the issue of a debt collector failing to disclose to the debtor in subsequent communication that a previous letter requesting information regarding an alleged debt was from a debt collector. This type of situation is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FD CPA), which requires debt collectors to provide accurate and transparent information to debtors. In this notice, the debtor should clearly state their complaint regarding the debt collector's actions. They should emphasize that the initial letter requesting information regarding the alleged debt did not explicitly inform them that it was from a debt collector. It is crucial to include specific details such as the date of the initial letter, the contents of the letter, and any misleading or false representations made within it. Some potential variations or subtypes of this second notice include: 1. Sacramento California Second Notice to Debt Collector of False or Misleading Misrepresentations in Collection Activities — Lack of Disclosure in Initial Letter: This notice addresses situations in which the debt collector fails to disclose their identity as a debt collector in the initial letter itself. 2. Sacramento California Second Notice to Debt Collector of False or Misleading Misrepresentations in Collection Activities — Omission of Disclosure in Subsequent Communication: This notice points out instances where the debt collector did not disclose in subsequent communications that the initial letter was indeed from a debt collector, leading to confusion or misunderstanding. 3. Sacramento California Second Notice to Debt Collector of False or Misleading Misrepresentations in Collection Activities — Misleading Language or Representations: In this notice, the debtor highlights specific misleading or false language used by the debt collector in the initial letter or subsequent communication. Regardless of the subtype, it is imperative to clearly state the violation of the FD CPA and express the debtor's expectation for corrective action from the debt collector.
