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.
During yesterday’s webinar, Pete Barry mentioned this as one of the most common claims he’s seeing from consumers today, saying that he is seeing a lot of collectors “dialing around” to a consumer’s family members, attempting to collect on a debt. Case in point … A collection operation is facing accusations of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida and Texas state law after contacting the plaintiff’s family members in an attempt to collect on a debt, while also allegedly failing to provide the plaintiff with the opportunity to dispute the debt and failing to identify itself as a debt collector.
The Background: In an attempt to collect on the underlying debt, the defendant is accused of calling “several” of the plaintiff’s family members, saying that the plaintiff listed them as points of contact on the account, which was allegedly false, according to the complaint.
- The defendant also contacted the plaintiff’s brother and allegedly said there was litigation against the plaintiff and that the plaintiff needed to get in contact with the defendant right away. As of the date of the conversation, no litigation had been filed against the plaintiff, according to the complaint. The claim was made in order to cause a least sophisticated consumer into believing that he or she would be prosecuted if a payment was not immediately made, according to the complaint.
- The defendant also failed to disclose itself in one or more conversations with the plaintiff, failed to provide the mini-Miranda notice, and never informed the plaintiff of her right to dispute the validity of the debt, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692b(2), 1692c(b), 1692d(2), 1692e(2), 1692e(3), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692e(15), and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating several sections of the Texas Finance Code.
- The defendant is also accused of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
