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.
Issues with the statute of limitations on a debt and when and how debts are removed from credit reports are two minefields that collectors should navigate carefully at all costs. There are plenty of potential things that could go wrong during a conversation between a collector and a consumer when those topics are addressed. One collection operation now finds itself the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit in Georgia federal court because of comments made — and not made — by a collector during a conversation with a consumer on both of those fronts.
The Background: In checking his credit report this past June, the plaintiff identified a debt from 2017 that was being reported by the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant then had a phone conversation about the debt, during which the representative of the defendant made several offers to settle the debt for less than the full amount owed. The defendant also allegedly informed the plaintiff that if the debt was paid, the item would “come off” the plaintiff’s credit report. The plaintiff took this to mean that the debt would stay on his credit report until it was paid. The defendant also allegedly failed to mention that the statute of limitations had expired on the debt and that the plaintiff could not be sued for it, and that if a payment was made, the statute of limitations would restart.
- Believing that the item would stay on his credit report until it was paid caused the plaintiff to suffer stress and anxiety and spend time creating a financial plan to get his bills paid and credit score raised. The misinformation from the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to make informed decisions, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, as well as state law in Georgia.
Learn more.
