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 law firm is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F for not including all of the required itemization information in an initial communication with the plaintiff, which took the form of a collection letter.
The Background: The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant in June 2023. The letter states that, as of the date of the letter, the plaintiff owed $1,894.40. The letter also stated that because of fees and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day that a payment is made may be greater.
- The letter also informs the plaintiff that he has 30 days to dispute all of part of the debt and that any dispute must be made in writing. It also stated that “even though you have the right to dispute the validity of the debt within the thirty (30) day period in writing, [the defendant] may choose to continue with collection, including filing of legal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law.”
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA and Regulation F because the letter failed to include an itemization date or reference to an itemization date. The letter also failed to provide a breakdown of the debt with regard to interest, fees, payments, and credits.
- The letter also allegedly failed to provide the specific date by which the plaintiff must dispute the debt.
- The letter also demands a written dispute when “in reality” a dispute can be submitted via “many different methods including by phone,” according to the complaint and that collection activity may continue even if the debt is disputed.
- The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else in Texas who received an initial collection letter from the defendant that failed to provide all of the necessary itemization information.
