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 has removed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case originally filed in Florida state court to federal court, after it was accused of not knowing that an account had previously been placed with another collection agency, and that the debt had been reported to the credit reporting agencies, subsequently disputed by the plaintiff, then deleted from the plaintiff’s credit report and returned back to the original creditor and because it responded to a letter it received from the plaintiff’s lawyer saying it could not find any account from the plaintiff in its records, only to start reporting it as delinquent a year later.
A copy of the complaint, removed to the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00823 or by clicking here.
Back in 2021, a debt owed by the plaintiff was placed with an agency for collection. The agency began reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies. About eight months later, in February 2022, the plaintiff disputed the debt and the agency instructed the credit reporting agency to delete the debt from the plaintiff’s credit report and the account was returned to the original creditor. The debt was subsequently assigned to the defendant. The defendant either should have received details from the creditor that the debt was disputed or should have screened the account to check it because the defendant should have known that that when it received accounts from the creditor, it was likely not the first agency to be assigned the account.
In March 2022, the plaintiff’s attorney sent the defendant a letter, informing the defendant that the plaintiff was represented and that all further communication should be sent to the attorney. The defendant responded to the letter and said it could not find any account associated with the plaintiff in its system.
A year later, in March 2023, the defendant began reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies as a new collection for an account that was opened in January 2023, and failed to indicate that the debt was disputed.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692e(8), and 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA as well as state law in Florida.
