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 accusations it violated Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by allegedly mistaking the plaintiff’s sister for his wife, and for making calls after being notified the plaintiff was represented by an attorney, among other claims.
The Background: The plaintiff received an email seeking to recover the alleged debt. After sending the email, the defendant began contacting the plaintiff’s sister, who was not a cosigner on the debt. In one message, a representative of the defendant said that she was reaching out “pertaining to the secured merchandise for Shane Co. regarding your husband,” who is the plaintiff. The message goes on to say, “We have been retained by the bank to handle this due to non-payment I would like to help him as much as I can to get this resolved other than him voluntary surrendering the merchandise. So if he wants to retain the merchandise, I do need to speak with him today so we can get this resolved before I mark it as a refusal and advise my client.”
- The plaintiff then received a call from the defendant last month and the plaintiff allegedly informed the defendant he was represented by an attorney and the lawyer would reach out to the defendant. The defendant’s representative allegedly “insisted” on getting the name of the lawyer, which the plaintiff refused to provide.
- The defendant allegedly continued to contact the plaintiff and in a subsequent conversation “demanded” to know the name of the attorney, according to the complaint. The plaintiff claimed he had to leave a work meeting at one point to return a call from the defendant.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(b), 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(c), 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA.
