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 Practices Act lawsuit in California after being accused of forcing the plaintiffs to pay a debt that had already allegedly been paid.
The Background: In April 2023, the plaintiffs moved out of their apartment, having settled all dues, including a final utilities bill deducted from their security deposit, according to the complaint. In December 2023, they received a collection notice from the defendant, claiming they owed $123.79, with accrued interest increasing the total to $129.06. The plaintiffs were informed that the debt was for their final utility bill, which had already been deducted from their security deposit.
- The plaintiffs then noticed that the defendant had begun reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies. The plaintiffs contacted the defendant, and a representative “aggressively” informed the plaintiff that she would be offered a “one-time offer” to have the debt removed from the plaintiffs’ credit reports if the debt was paid on the spot. The plaintiff paid the debt.
- The plaintiff subsequently disputed the debt with the defendant and then reached out to the building’s manager to get them to intervene.
- The defendant informed the plaintiffs that they would be refunded and their credit reports updated, but in the months following that notification, nothing has happened, according to the complaint. Not only is the debt still being reported, it is not even being noted that the debt is disputed, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA as well as provisions of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
