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.
Is it a red flag when a complaint alleges that a collector made mistakes in a letter that it sent to a consumer, but then the consumer doesn’t attach the letter as an exhibit in the complaint? Is it more of a red flag when that complaint is a class-action? A collector is being sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it attempted to collect a debt that the plaintiff alleges he did not incur.
The background: The plaintiff received a phone call from the defendant last month, seeking to collect on an unpaid utility debt. The plaintiff stated during the call that the debt was not valid because he had not received any prior letters from the utility company or the defendant in regard to the debt and because the defendant was attempting to collect on a debt related to an electric bill for an address that the plaintiff no longer lived at.
- During the call, the plaintiff disputed the debt and asked to have the appropriate correspondence sent to him, while also requesting that the defendant not contact him by phone, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff did receive a letter from the defendant. In the letter, which was not attached as an exhibit, the plaintiff’s name is spelled wrong, the defendant does not identify itself as a debt collector, and does not include an account number with the creditor to whom the debt is owed, according to the complaint.
- The defendant called the plaintiff twice in the weeks after sending the letter.
- The defendant’s actions frustrated the plaintiff and caused distress, embarrassment, and humiliation, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692g, 1692c, 1692(b)(3), and 1692(b)(5).
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else living in New York who received a collection communication from the defendant for a debt and were subject to improper collection actions.
