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.
Oftentimes, I look for complaints that companies in the accounts receivable management industry can use as opportunities to identify trends or potential problem spots in their own operations. Other times, it’s about the wild and wacky complaints that make their way in front of a federal judge. The rest of the times — like this one — it’s more about the uniqueness of a complaint — something maybe people in the industry who have seen a lot haven’t seen before.
A plaintiff has filed suit accusing a collection operation of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it falsely represented the amount of a debt that was actually incurred in Switzerland and possibly had an inaccurate exchange rate applied to it.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-81158 or by clicking here.
During a trip to Europe, the plaintiff rented a car. After returning home, the plaintiff received a communication from the rental car company indicating there was damage to the vehicle. The damage was estimated to cost 383 Swiss francs to repair and the company also assessed 268.70 Swiss francs in fees, bringing the total owed to 651.70 Swiss francs.
The debt was eventually placed with the defendant, which sent a letter to the plaintiff, seeking to collect $797.69. However, based on the current exchange rate, the amount that was owed should have been $729.90. To have reached a total of $797.69, the exchange rate would have had to reach a point it has only reached once before — back in 2011.
The complaint also accuses the defendant of not providing the itemization information about the debt, such as the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, a dispute notification, and additional information about the debt.
The defendant is accused of violating Section 16982e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f(1), and 1692g(a) of the FDCPA.
