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.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
An individual has filed a class-action complaint, accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because she received two separate letters on the same day, one advising her of her right to dispute the validity of a debt and one providing verification of the debt via a summary of the account.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of Connecticut can be accessed using case number 22-cv-01250.
The two letters were both dated October 12, 2021 and had the same information about the debt at the top of the pages. The first letter stated that the defendant “has initiated a review of the inquiry recently received” and also included the validation notice at the bottom of the page. The second letter advised the plaintiff “[w]e have received a recent inquiry regarding the above-referenced account and have enclosed the account summary which provides verification of the debt.”
The complaint accuses the defendants of overshadowing the validation notice because the second letter allegedly “makes it appear (incorrectly)” that the plaintiff could no longer exercise her rights under Section 1692g of the FDCPA to dispute the debt or seek verification.
Going even further, the summary that was provided in the second letter listed a total amount that was different — $1 more — than the amount listed at the top of both letters.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone living in Connecticut who received letters containing “misleading and contradictory” language and/or which provided inconsistent amounts that were due.
