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 collector is facing a class-action lawsuit for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending two letters attempting to collect on alleged debt on the same day — in which the amounts due were different. The defendant also sent another letter to the plaintiff — inside the 30-day validation window — indicating that the current creditor to whom the debt was owed was now different than the original two letters, “exponentially” complicating the situation, according to the complaint.
A copy of the complaint, removed to the District Court for the Eastern District of New York by the defendant, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-02422 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff received two Model Validation Notices from the defendant that were dated the same day. One indicated the amount owed was $750 and one indicated the amount owed was $250. The account numbers are redacted in the complaint, so it’s impossible to confirm that the debts were the same. All that we have to go on is what is mentioned in the complaint, which indicates that there is only one debt in question.
The complaint also indicates that less than a month later, the plaintiff received another letter from the defendant, indicating that the debt was now owned by someone else, thereby allegedly overshadowing the plaintiff’s right to dispute the first debt. The second letter indicates the original creditor was the creditor named in the Model Validation Notices and that the amount due was $750.
The complaint seeks to include anyone else who received letters from the defendant attempting to collect on a debt where the letters set forth different amounts due for the same debt despite being issued on the same day. The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA.
