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 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit because it allegedly did not believe the plaintiff’s contention that she had paid a debt it was attempting to collect, going as far as to accuse the plaintiff of fabricating information, according to the complaint.
The Background: The plaintiff moved out of an apartment building in 2021. She received a final balance and paid it, according to the complaint. Then, in October 2023, the plaintiff was contacted by the defendant, seeking to collect on a debt owed to the building’s owner.
- The plaintiff contacted the defendant to dispute the debt and request verification.
- The plaintiff then began trying to get in touch with the company that owned the building. In November, the plaintiff discovered the building had a new owner. A representative of the new owner allegedly told the plaintiff that there were “many individuals” in the same situation as the plaintiff. The plaintiff was eventually told she had to contact the defendant regarding her account.
- The plaintiff called the defendant and submitted her documentation that the debt had been paid. This included an email from the building owner showing the balance that was owed and a redacted bank statement showing that the payment had been made.
- This January, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant indicating that the debt was still owed and that interest had begun to accrue.
- The defendant said that “managers” had reviewed the documentation and concluded the plaintiff’s documentation was fabricated, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA, as well as provisions of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
