The FDCPA is one of those interesting statutes that creates strict liability for a violation of it. Strict liability is liability imposed without regard to fault. Therefore, if a violation of the FDCPA is proven, the debt collector is liable. The simplest example of this is found in a “letter violation.” That is, when a debt collector violates the FDCPA in a writing. It’s on paper. There’s no denying it (unless the debt collector claims that it did not write the letter and that someone is sending out fraudulent letters using their company’s information). The violation is there. Debt collectors, and some courts, sometimes refer to these violations as “technical” and dismiss them as if they are not important. I take issue with this. They are violations. There is strict liability.
Congress’ intent on creating strict liability lies within the FDCPA. Section 1692k(a) reads “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this title with respect to any person is liable to such person…” (Emphasis added.) Further, the sections of the FDCPA repeatedly refer to “may not use any” and “may not engage in any” which further supports Congress’ intent on making the FDCPA a strict liability statute.
(Copyright - Amy B. Good-Ashman 2008)
