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.
We’ve all seen and heard about lawsuits accusing collectors of violating Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the Model Validation Notice was undated, but this might be the first suit where the MVN was dated, but the itemization date was left blank.
The Background: The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. In the itemization table, it says:
You had an account with Stratford Career Institute, with account number ***3321.
As of / / , you owed: $769.00
Between / / and today
You were charged this amount in interest + $0.00
- The MVN itself is dated and the date for the deadline to contact the defendant to dispute all or part of the debt is included — it’s just the itemization date that was left blank.
The Claim: The plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit, accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. The complaint seeks to include anyone who received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant where the itemization date was left blank going back one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
- To claim standing, the plaintiff alleges to have been prevented from her right not to be treated unfairly or misled. As well, the plaintiff could not adequately or informatively respond to the demand for payment. Because the the Notice did not include an itemization date, the plaintiff used the funds that would have paid all or part of this debt somewhere else. Finally, the plaintiff expended time and money in an effort to mitigate the risk of future financial harm.
