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 class-action lawsuit, accused of numerous violations, including misrepresenting debt information, failing to honor debt dispute requests, and engaging in deceptive collection practices, according to the complaint. One of the main issues is the length of time it apparently took the notices and letters that were sent to the plaintiff to actually be delivered by the postal service.
The Background: The plaintiff alleges that he received multiple misleading and improperly timed collection letters from the defendant. These letters included false information about debt settlement offers and contained misleading statements that implied a sense of urgency.
The Timeline:
- November 3, 2022: The plaintiff claims to have received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, which was dated November 3 but not delivered until November 23. This notice allegedly failed to provide the required 30-day period to dispute the debt, as stipulated by the FDCPA and Regulation F.
- December 19, 2022: The plaintiff received another collection letter, which was also allegedly delayed in being delivered, leading to confusion about the time-sensitive offers mentioned in the letter.
- January 6, 2023: A collection letter dated January 6 but allegedly received much later falsely claimed it was sent via Federal Express, creating a misleading sense of urgency regarding the settlement offer.
- March 8, 2023: The plaintiff received a letter containing three separate settlement options, each allegedly implying that the only way to stop collection calls was by accepting one of the offers.
- May 3, 2023: Another letter from the defendant was delayed, rendering the time-sensitive offers in the letter misleading.
- October 4, 2023: The plaintiff received a collection letter with misleading time-sensitive offers and incorrect information about debt collection myths.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA as well as provisions of Regulation F, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
- The plaintiff aims to represent a class of similarly affected individuals in New Jersey, alleging that the defendant’s practices have impacted numerous consumers through misleading and deceptive debt collection communications.
