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.
Compliance condition codes are tricky and not always easily understood. One collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court because the plaintiff disagreed with the condition code the collector was reporting when the plaintiff disputed the debt a second time.
The background: Back in February 2023, the plaintiff checked her credit report and saw that the defendant was reporting the debt in question as a collection item. The plaintiff sent the defendant a letter in which she disputed the debt.
- A year later — February 2024 — the plaintiff checked her credit report and saw that the defendant was reporting the debt as “account previously in dispute-investigation complete, reported by data furnisher.”
- The plaintiff sent the defendant another letter, disputing the debt again. In the letter, she said that the fact that the defendant was reporting that the debt was previously in dispute was false because she had not stopped disputing the debt.
- The plaintiff checked her credit report again in late April and saw that the defendant was still not reporting the debt as being in dispute.
- The defendant’s actions led to the plaintiff’s credit score bring “improperly depressed,” according to the complaint, which made it harder for her to obtain employment, housing, and credit for her day-to-day needs. The defendant’s actions also caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional damages, including stress, anxiety, depression, nervousness, frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation, and physical damages including loss of sleep, the inability to concentrate, headaches, and restlessness.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e of the FDCPA by reporting credit information which is known to be false, including a failure to communicate that the disputed debt is disputed.
