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.
There are two sides to every story, right? Complaints can be comprehensive, but they only provide one side to that story. In that way, it’s often difficult to separate fact from fiction or whether something was just misheard or misunderstood. Take this complaint, for example. The plaintiffs are suing a collection operation and two of the three major credit reporting agencies because of debts that appeared on their credit reports; debts that the agency allegedly said wouldn’t be reported. Doesn’t it seem odd that an agency would be furnishing information about a debt to the credit reporting agencies while a representative of the company said they didn’t do that?
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of Nevada, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01281 or by clicking here.
The plaintiffs rented an apartment and then vacated the premises. The owner of the building claimed the plaintiffs owed $1,013.48 in property damages, which the plaintiffs allegedly disputed. Despite claiming they didn’t owe the debt, the plaintiffs made two “good faith” payments on the balance, at which point the creditor allegedly tripled the balance that was owed to $3,633.50 and assigned the debt to a collection agency. The plaintiffs disputed the debt with the agency and during a call with the agency, a representative said the debt would not be reported to the plaintiffs’ credit reports, even though it already was being reported, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs filed disputes with two of the three credit reporting agencies and none of the defendants have failed to investigate or review the disputed information.
The complaint accuses the two credit reporting agencies of violating Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the collection agency of violating Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA and Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), and 1692f(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
