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.
A class-action complaint has been filed in federal court in Texas accusing a collection law firm of violating Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending two letters and an email on consecutive dats that allegedly contained conflicting information about how long the plaintiff had to contact the defendant about the debt.
A copy of the complaint — filed in the District Court for the Western District of Texas — can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00013 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff received an email from the defendant last September that indicated the plaintiff owed $1,247,95 in unpaid principal, plus $415.98 in attorney/collection fees and $28.21 in interest, which brought the total to “$1692.14195.32” which is a number I’ll admit I have never seen before. The email also informed the plaintiff that after he reviewed the email “today” to “please contact” the defendant using the phone number at the bottom of the email.
The following day, the plaintiff received two letters from the defendant. One letter stated:
“If we do not receive payment or otherwise hear from you by October 6, 2022, then Leasco, Inc. will consider taking further action to recover the amount due. In addition, unless this balance is immediately satisfied, this may negatively affect your credit report.”
while the other one stated:
“Unless you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, within thirty (30) days after receiving this notice, we will assume this debt is valid. However, upon receipt of such notification, we will provide you with verification of the debt.”
Taken together, the email and the letters conflict with one another by providing three different timeframes “with threatened consequences for failure to comply,” according to the complaint. Making things allegedly more confusing for the plaintiff were that the file numbers in the letters did not match the file number in the email.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone from Texas who received multiple communications from the defendant that contained conflicting information or incomplete disclosures.
