EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
A defendant is seeking to remove a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in which it is accused of contacting an individual who was represented by an attorney to federal court in Pennsylvania.
A copy of the motion, as well the original complaint, filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff retained counsel to represent him in a collection lawsuit that was filed by the defendant. The defendant had hired a collection law firm to collect on the unpaid debt. The law firm was allegedly aware of the representation and was in communication with the defendant during the time that the collection lawsuit was ongoing as well as after the conclusion of the case.
Upon the conclusion of the collection lawsuit, in January 2017, the attorney representing the plaintiff allegedly sent the defendant a letter, making “it clear” that the plaintiff was still being represented “even after the collection lawsuit ended,” according to the complaint.
Nearly five years later, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff, attempting to collect on the debt. The attorney representing the plaintiff allegedly sent another cease-and-desist letter, but the defendant allegedly “attempted to make contact” with the plaintiff via phone after the letter was sent.
The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1682d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA, because it knew the plaintiff was represented by an attorney and because “it knew the Debt was
extremely old and that credit reporting was nearly obsolete yet drafted the Collection Letter leaving it intentionally vague which can cause the least sophisticated consumer to be confused whether the Debt would be reported for a meaningful period of time to the credit bureaus when in reality it was only allowed to be reported for an insignificant period of time as of the date of the Collection Letter.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
A defendant is seeking to remove a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in which it is accused of contacting an individual who was represented by an attorney to federal court in Pennsylvania.
A copy of the motion, as well the original complaint, filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff retained counsel to represent him in a collection lawsuit that was filed by the defendant. The defendant had hired a collection law firm to collect on the unpaid debt. The law firm was allegedly aware of the representation and was in communication with the defendant during the time that the collection lawsuit was ongoing as well as after the conclusion of the case.
Upon the conclusion of the collection lawsuit, in January 2017, the attorney representing the plaintiff allegedly sent the defendant a letter, making “it clear” that the plaintiff was still being represented “even after the collection lawsuit ended,” according to the complaint.
Nearly five years later, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff, attempting to collect on the debt. The attorney representing the plaintiff allegedly sent another cease-and-desist letter, but the defendant allegedly “attempted to make contact” with the plaintiff via phone after the letter was sent.
The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1682d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA, because it knew the plaintiff was represented by an attorney and because “it knew the Debt was
extremely old and that credit reporting was nearly obsolete yet drafted the Collection Letter leaving it intentionally vague which can cause the least sophisticated consumer to be confused whether the Debt would be reported for a meaningful period of time to the credit bureaus when in reality it was only allowed to be reported for an insignificant period of time as of the date of the Collection Letter.”
