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 against a pair of defendants — a collection agency and a debt buyer — for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending two model validation notices for what appears to be the same debt on consecutive days, with one of the notices containing a settlement offer, and each notice containing a different debt by which the plaintiff had to dispute or request information about the original creditor.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00012 or by clicking here. A copy of the two notices can be accessed by clicking here and here.
The notices are undated, but the complaint alleges they were sent on June 6 and June 7 of last year. The account numbers are redacted from each notice, but they both are attempting to collect a debt of $4,151.92 that is owed to the same creditor. The first letter — which has a validation date of July 21 — includes three settlement offers and a disclosure. The second letter — which has a validation date of July 22 — does not include any other offers.
The conflicting dispute dates made it unable for the plaintiff to determine when the validation period would end and overshadowed the dispute window, the complaint alleges.
The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else living in the state of Kentucky who may have received similar notices on consecutive days which referenced conflicting validation dates.
