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 collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act lawsuit for allegedly contacting the plaintiffs after acknowledging they had requested the defendant cease communicating with them because they were attempting to get in touch with someone else when calling their phone.
The Background: The plaintiffs began receiving calls on their phone from the defendant, that was seeking to collect on an unpaid mobile phone account. The plaintiffs returned a missed call from the defendant and spoke with one of its representatives during a call and were told by the representative that the name on the account was Anshniqua, which was not the names of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs informed the defendant they were contacting the wrong number, that they did not owe the debt, and asked the defendant to stop calling them.
- The defendant allegedly called the plaintiff’s phone four more times that month, and 12 times five months later.
- An attorney representing the plaintiffs then sent an email to the defendants indicating it was representing the plaintiffs in an FDCPA claim against the defendant and asked for all communications with the plaintiffs to cease.
- Later that same day, the defendant responded to the email, saying that since the attorney has confirmed the number belonged to the plaintiff and not the individual the defendant was trying to reach, the defendant had marked the number as a wrong number, removed it from its records and placed the number on the defendant’s do not call list to prevent any further communications. The defendant also apologized for any inconvenience.
- Seven months later, the plaintiffs received a text message from the defendant, still trying to reach Anshniqua, and this time making her an offer to settle the debt for less than the full balance that was owed.
The Claims: The plaintiffs allege the defendant violated:
- Sections 1692b(3) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiffs about the alleged debt
- Section 1692c(a)(2) by communicating with the plaintiffs despite knowing they were represented by counsel
- Section 1692d by continuing to contact the plaintiffs in regard to a debt they did not owe
- Section 1692d(5) by causing a phone to ring or engaging any person in a conversation repeatedly when it continued to place collection calls within seven days of talking to the plaintiffs
- Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), and 1692e(10) by attempting to collect a debt that the plaintiffs did not owe
- Section 1692f
- Section 1692g(b) by attempting to collect on a debt after the plaintiffs had orally disputed owing the alleged debt
