A class-action complaint has been filed in federal court in Florida accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by requiring that the plaintiff include a reason why a debt was being disputed when disputing a debt during a phone call with a representative of the defendant.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Zeev v. Midland Credit Management and Midland Funding can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff called the defendant last November to dispute a debt. The representative of the defendant allegedly refused to accept the dispute unless the plaintiff provided a reason why the debt was being disputed. The plaintiff was allegedly not prepared to provide a reason for the dispute and the request to do so made him “stressed and fearful about explaining his position to well-trained professional debt collectors,” according to the complaint. Contemplating whether he “needed to explain his position better or stronger” after the call, the plaintiff also allegedly suffered emotional and mental stress, according to the complaint. The alleged actions of the defendant overshadowed the plaintiff’s right to dispute the debt during the 30-day validation window under the FDCPA because a reason is not part of the dispute requirement, claimed the plaintiff in his complaint. The alleged request also constituted a false and deceptive tactic that confuses consumers, he alleged.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692g and 1692e of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else in Florida who was required to submit a reason when disputing a debt during a call with the defendant.
