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 being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because it allegedly did not comply with the plaintiff’s refusal to pay the debts in question and called the plaintiff the day after the refusals were made, on two separate occasions.
The Background: Starting in May, the plaintiff began receiving a call at the same time every day, and from the same number. The plaintiff came to learn the number belonged to the defendant.
- On June 12, the plaintiff sent an email to the defendant, stating he was refusing to pay the debt.
- The defendant allegedly called the plaintiff on June 13 and June 14. On June 14, the defendant sent an email to the plaintiff stating the account had been returned to the creditor. But the defendant continued to make phone calls to the plaintiff, according to the complaint.
- Last month, the defendant started reaching out to the plaintiff again, this time to collect on a different debt from a different creditor. The plaintiff sent another refusal to pay on July 8.
- The defendant allegedly called the plaintiff on July 9 in an attempt to collect on the debt.
- The complaint lists more than 40 dates where calls were allegedly received by the plaintiff from the defendant, all using an automated telephone dialing system.
- The plaintiff never consented to receiving calls on his cell phone from the defendant and the defendant allegedly ignored the plaintiff’s repeated demands to cease communications. The calls were made using a prerecorded voice because when the plaintiff answered a call from the defendant, the plaintiff would hear a machine-operated voice message or a noticeable period of dead air.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by not honoring the request to cease communications, Section 1692d(6) of the FDCPA by engaging in conduct meant to harass the plaintiff, and Section 1692d(5) of the FDCPA by continuously causing the plaintiff’s phone to ring.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Section 227(b) of the TCPA by using an ATDS or prerecorded message without the plaintiff’s express consent.
