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 consumer has accused a collection operation of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and accused the collector and original creditor of violating state law in Texas for attempting to collect on a debt for goods and services that were never provided, and which could end up costing the consumer his job.
The background: The plaintiff signed up for Internet service from the creditor, but the service was allegedly never installed in the consumer’s apartment in Texas. The creditor allegedly billed the plaintiff for the service, according to the complaint. The plaintiff disputed the bill with the creditor, which led the creditor to reducing the amount of the bill to $618 from $818.
- When the bill was still not paid, the account was placed with the collection operation. The collection operation informed the defendant that it was going to report adverse credit information regarding the account to the three major credit reporting agencies.
- The plaintiff obtained a copy of his report and saw that the debt was being reported to the credit reporting agencies.
- The plaintiff is employed by the United States Government and holds a top secret security clearance, and his credit is routinely monitored by the government, according to the complaint.
- The information being reported to the credit reporting agencies is likely to have an “extremely detrimental” effect on the plaintiff’s employment and could lead to his termination, according to the complaint.
The claims: The collection operation is accused of violating Section 1692e of the FDCPA, which caused the plaintiff to suffer mental damages and the accompanying physical damages.
- The two defendants are also accused of violating the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
