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.
It can be really hard sometimes to determine whether a plaintiff is playing games in an attempt to win a lawsuit or get a collector to stop collecting a debt or if there is a legitimate complaint. This is one of those circumstances. The plaintiff in this lawsuit checked her credit report in March and saw a tradeline furnished by one of the defendants. The tradeline indicated the debt was being disputed, which the plaintiff didn’t remember doing.
The plaintiff mailed the defendant a letter saying she no longer disputed the debt and wanted the dispute flag removed from the account.
A month later, the plaintiff allegedly noticed an inaccuracy with the account and contacted the defendant to dispute the debt. During the conversation, the plaintiff informed the representative that she “disagreed with the balance owed” on the account in question.
The plaintiff checked her credit report and noted that the account was not being reported as disputed anymore.
The plaintiff then received a letter from a different collection agency seeking to collect on a different debt. She sent the agency a letter which stated that she did not have any money and therefore refused to pay the alleged debt.
The plaintiff then received a letter from the other defendant, seeking to collect on the second debt.
The complaint is accusing the first defendant of violating Section 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by first reporting that the debt was disputed when it wasn’t and then not reporting the debt as disputed when it was. The defendant is also accused of violating state law in Florida.
The second defendant is accused of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA because it contacted the plaintiff after the plaintiff had submitted a cease communication request.
The actions of both defendants caused the plaintiff to suffer from mental stress, headaches, sleeplessnes, and worry for the future.
