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.
I have to admit, this one is a bit of a head-shaker. I tried writing out a summary of what’s going on here, but the sentence got to be really long, even for me, so I think I can best give you a high-level recap of this complaint by saying a collection agency is being sued more for what it didn’t do than what it did.
The Background: The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter attempted to collect what the plaintiff owed the creditor. This, apparently, was the first mistake. What made it a mistake? The agreement between the plaintiff and the creditor indicated that if the account was placed with a third party for collection, a collection fee would be assessed. Because the letter did not include a collection fee, the amount of the debt was allegedly not honestly disclosed. How dare the agency try to collect less than what the plaintiff may have owed?
- The plaintiff disputed the debt with the defendant. According to the complaint, rather than note the account as disputed with the credit reporting agencies, the defendant returned the account to the creditor. Here comes mistake #2: The creditor began furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies, but didn’t note the account was disputed, which was apparently the defendant’s fault.
- Mistake #3 allegedly occurred when the creditor placed the account with a different collection agency, which forced the plaintiff to “once again pursue her federally protected rights with another debt collector.”
Based on the allegations, what should the defendant have done differently?
The Claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA.
