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 class-action Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit after being accused of attempting to collect on a debt that had already been paid to another collection agency.
The Background: Back in February 2023, the plaintiff was contacted by a collection agency in relation to an unpaid cell phone bill. The plaintiff allegedly settled the debt with the agency and in May 2023, received a letter from the agency indicating the balance was now $0.00.
- A month later, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, a different collection agency. The notice informed the plaintiff that a cell phone account with the same carrier that ended in the same last four digits had a balance of $118.82 as of February 17, 2023. An additional $21.38 in fees raised the balance to $140.20 that was due now. The notice does not mention any reference to the previous collection agency or that the plaintiff allegedly settled the debt.
- Rather that contacting the creditor or the defendant, the plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA because it knew or should have known that the debt had already been paid. The defendant should have done its due diligence before collecting on a debt that was previously settled in full, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff was confused about whether or not the debt still existed and made him upset because he was concerned that his previous payment was a scam and that he would suffer further now having to pay the debt again as well as have his credit score harmed further.
The Claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f(1), and 1692g of the FDCPA by attempting to collect on a debt that had been previously settled.
- The class seeks to include anyone else living in the state of New York who received a collection letter from the defendant for a debt that was previously paid off.
