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 operation is facing a lawsuit accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F because it refused to identify itself when contacted by the plaintiff, ignored a request to cease communications, and rounded up instead of down when making a settlement offer on a debt that ended in an odd number, thereby throwing off the amount of the discount by a penny.
The background: Back in May, the plaintiff received a call from the defendant. During the call, the plaintiff allegedly revoked consent to be contacted, stating “Do not call or contact me by any other method.”
- The next day, the plaintiff noticed a number of missed calls on his phone from numbers he did not recognize. Because he happened to be waiting for another call, the plaintiff dialed one of the random numbers in an attempt to identify the source of the missed calls. When the call was answered, the plaintiff requested the individual identify himself. Despite the request, the defendant did not identify himself in a meaningful way nor did he indicate the nature of the call, according to the complaint.
- The next day, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant. The plaintiff responded to the email with another request that the defendant stop contacting him.
- Previously, the defendant had submitted settlement offers to the plaintiff, indicating the plaintiff could save $428.18 on his debt of $856.35 by paying $428.18. But if the plaintiff paid $428.18, the balance on the debt would be $428.17, not $428.18, noted the complaint.
- In a subsequent offer, the defendant indicated the plaintiff could save $85.64 by paying $770.72. But again, if the plaintiff paid $770,72, the size of the settlement offer would be $85.63, not $85.64.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA and Section 1006.6(c)(1) of Regulation F by not honoring the request to cease communications.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Section 1692d(6) of the FDCPA and Section 1006.14(g) of Regulation F by failing to identify itself in a meaningful way as a debt collector.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Section 1692e(2)(a) of the FDCPA and Section 1006.18(b)(2) of Regulation F by mis-stating the character, amount, or legal status of the debt.
