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.
A collector is facing a class-action Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for a number of violations, including not sending a validation notice in a timely manner, for indicating it would cease collection efforts on the debt but not doing so, and for communicating with the plaintiff when it knew she was represented by an attorney.
The Background: The plaintiff incurred a $3,705 medical debt from Glendive Medical Center back in 2018. The defendant sent a collection notice, but failed to include a disclosure that the plaintiff could dispute any portion of the debt and that if the plaintiff did not dispute the debt, the defendant would assume it to be valid.
- The plaintiff retained an attorney and a settlement was reached in 2020 where the defendant agreed to cease all collection efforts against the plaintiff and stop reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies.
- Last June, the defendant contacted the plaintiff, attempting to collect on a debt. A few months later, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and spoke with a representative. The representative said the plaintiff owed a debt to Glendive Gabert Medical for the amount of $3,655.75.
- When the plaintiff tried to dispute the debt, she was allegedly told that her time to dispute the debt or seek validation was back in 2019 and her only option was to pay the debt in full.
- The plaintiff asked for a mailing address that she could send a dispute to, and the representative allegedly directed her to the defendant’s website, saying the company didn’t like “snail mail.”
- When asked if the defendant was refusing to provide an address, the representative said it wasn’t and supplied a P.O. box.
- The representative said the defendant had received the account in 2019 and that no payments had been made since 2020.
The Claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692g of the FDCPA because it did not send her a notice informing her of her rights to dispute the debt or seek verification of it.
- The plaintiff is also accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692c and 1692e of the FDCPA because it knew that she was represented by an attorney and contacted her anyway, and because it said it would mark the account as disputed and apparently did not. The defendant also represented that it had no right to verify the debt, and that the plaintiff had no right to dispute it.
- The plaintiff is also accusing the defendant of violating state law in Montana.
- The plaintiff is seeking to include anyone whom the defendant contacted in relation to the collection of a consumer debt in the class.
