The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act gives Washington DC residents the right to sue debt collectors who call before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., use abusive language, make false statements, or continue collecting after a written dispute. A successful FDCPA claim entitles you to up to $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees — paid by the violating collector. Attorney Fraser pursues FDCPA cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Debt collector harassing you? Free case evaluation: 202-417-8128 | calendly.com/fraserlawyers
What you may recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k
Plus actual damages (emotional distress, lost wages) and attorney fees — all paid by the violating collector, not by you.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a–1692p, is the primary federal statute regulating third-party debt collectors. Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 after finding “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors.” The statute does not merely regulate — it creates a private right of action that allows individual consumers to sue violating collectors in federal court and recover damages.
For Washington DC residents, Attorney Fraser files FDCPA cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The following violations represent the most commonly litigated provisions of the Act:
Calling before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in the consumer's time zone. A single call outside these hours is a per-se violation — no pattern required.
Once you send a written cease-and-desist letter, the collector may only contact you to confirm it will stop or to notify you of a specific legal action. Any other contact is a violation.
Using profane, threatening, or abusive language during collection calls. This includes repeated calls intended to annoy, harass, or abuse — even without explicit profanity.
Threatening arrest, wage garnishment, or lawsuits the collector cannot or does not intend to pursue. Misrepresenting the amount owed, the collector's identity, or the legal status of the debt.
Within five days of initial contact, the collector must send a written validation notice identifying the creditor and amount. Failing to send this notice — or continuing collection during the 30-day validation period after you dispute — is a violation.
Communicating with your employer, family, friends, or neighbors about your debt (except to obtain location information under strict limitations). Contacting you at work when informed your employer prohibits such calls.
Each of these violations gives rise to a federal cause of action. You do not need to prove that the collector acted intentionally — the FDCPA is a strict liability statute for most provisions. The collector’s ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Section 1692k of the FDCPA creates a comprehensive damages framework. A prevailing plaintiff recovers three categories of relief — and none of them come out of your pocket. FDCPA cases are typically taken on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless you win.
| Damages Category | Amount | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory Damages | Up to $1,000 | Per lawsuit (not per violation). Awarded at the court's discretion regardless of whether you suffered actual harm. |
| Actual Damages | Unlimited | Emotional distress, lost wages, medical costs, out-of-pocket expenses caused by the collector's conduct. No cap. |
| Attorney Fees & Costs | Mandatory | Paid by the violating collector. This is what allows contingency representation — the collector pays your lawyer. |
| Class Actions | Up to $500,000 | Or 1% of the collector’s net worth, whichever is less. Class statutory damages supplement individual claims. |
The fee-shifting provision is what makes FDCPA enforcement work. Because the violating collector pays your attorney fees, your lawyer’s interests are directly aligned with yours. Attorney Fraser takes FDCPA cases on contingency — you pay zero upfront, zero out of pocket. If you don’t win, you don’t pay.
The $1,000 statutory cap applies per lawsuit, not per violation. If a collector has committed multiple violations, they are all pursued within a single action — but the strength of your actual damages claim grows with each additional violation documented.
Washington DC residents have a significant advantage that most people — and many attorneys — overlook. The District of Columbia has its own debt collection statute, D.C. Code § 28-3814, that goes substantially beyond the FDCPA in three critical ways.
Covers third-party debt collectors and debt buyers only. Original creditors (your bank, your credit card company, your hospital) are exempt.
Covers original creditors and third-party collectors. If your bank is calling you directly with abusive tactics, DC law applies where federal law does not.
D.C. Code § 28-3814 interacts with the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), creating additional remedies. The CPPA provides for treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief for unfair trade practices — including abusive debt collection. This means a DC resident facing collector harassment may have causes of action under three separate statutes: the federal FDCPA, D.C. Code § 28-3814, and the CPPA.
Attorney Fraser evaluates every case under all applicable laws. When a collector violates both federal and DC law simultaneously, the combined recovery can substantially exceed what the FDCPA alone provides. Read more about the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act and how it strengthens your claims.
When a debt collector contacts you after you have filed for bankruptcy, that collector is violating two separate federal statutes simultaneously. This creates an extraordinarily powerful position for the debtor — and Attorney Fraser pursues both claims at the same time.
The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 takes effect the instant your bankruptcy petition is filed. Any collection contact after that moment — a phone call, a letter, a credit report update, even a text message — violates the stay. If the collector is also a third-party debt collector covered by the FDCPA, that same contact independently violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Two violations. Two separate damage awards. Two sets of attorney fees.
This dual-claim strategy is one of the most effective tools in consumer bankruptcy practice. A single collection call made after your bankruptcy filing can generate a federal lawsuit with real financial consequences for the violating collector — and real recovery for you.
Attorney Fraser monitors all client accounts after filing to identify stay violations in real time. When a violation occurs, he files an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court (for the § 362(k) claim) and/or a separate action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (for the FDCPA claim). Learn more about automatic stay violations and how they interact with FDCPA claims.
Documentation is the foundation of every successful FDCPA case. The evidence you preserve today becomes the exhibits filed in federal court tomorrow. Washington DC is a one-party consent jurisdiction, which means you can legally record any phone call you are part of without telling the other party. Use this to your advantage.
Do not confront the collector about the violation. Do not tell them you are recording. Do not threaten to sue. Simply document everything and contact Attorney Fraser. The stronger your documentation, the stronger your case — and the more leverage you have in settlement negotiations or at trial.
The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), fundamentally changed the standing analysis for consumer protection cases in federal court. Under TransUnion, a plaintiff must demonstrate concrete harm — not merely a statutory violation — to establish Article III standing in federal court.
For FDCPA cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this means the analysis depends on the type of violation alleged:
Actual collection contact (phone calls, letters, text messages), harassment, threats, false statements, and abusive language constitute concrete injuries with clear historical analogues to common-law torts like intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims generally survive a TransUnion challenge.
Purely informational violations — such as failure to include the validation notice required by § 1692g, or failure to identify the debt in a communication — may require showing that the missing information caused additional downstream harm. Courts in the D.C. Circuit have applied this analysis on a case-by-case basis.
Attorney Fraser evaluates standing at case intake — before any filing — to ensure every claim brought in the D.D.C. meets the concrete-harm threshold. This front-end analysis prevents dismissed cases and wasted time. If your primary violation is informational, Attorney Fraser identifies the concrete downstream harm (such as inability to dispute the debt, continued collection during the validation period, or credit report damage) that establishes standing.