A complaint has been filed accusing a collection agency of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F because it apparently did not use a Model Validation Notice and allegedly did not provide the itemization information required when it sent its first written communication attempting to collect on a debt.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Mercado & Lopez v. I.Q. Data International et al can be accessed by clicking here. This complaint was identified via a search of the database compiled and maintained by WebRecon.
The plaintiffs moved out of an apartment last December and were informed that they owed the creditor $101.15. The plaintiffs failed to pay the debt and it was placed with the defendant for collection. In February, the defendant sent the plaintiffs a letter, informing them that the balance of the debt was $757.77. The letter included the statement: “As of 12/13/21, you owed: $749.15. Between 12/13/21 and today: You were charged this amount in interest: $8.62” resulting in the total amount of the debt being $757.77.
The plaintiffs contacted the defendant, disputed the debt, and allegedly asked for an explanation about how it had increased from the original amount. The defendant allegedly failed to provide that information and “instead repeatedly attempted” to collect the debt from the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the defendants violated Section 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by making misrepresentations about the amount of the debt, and Section 1692f for allegedly using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect on a debt. The plaintiffs also allege the defendant violated Section 1006.34 of Regulation F by allegedly not providing an itemization date, the amount of the debt on the itemization date, and the itemization of the current amount of the debt reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date.
