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.
The fact that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute can be unfair at times, especially when coupled with a lawsuit that alleges a collector “knew or should have known” there was an issue before attempting to collect a debt. A class-action lawsuit has been filed against a collector in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for attempting to collect on a debt that had already been settled with another operation.
The background: In May 2023, the plaintiff allegedly settled a debt owed to Verizon that was being collected by a third-party agency. The plaintiff received a receipt from the agency indicating that the balance due was $0.00.
- Five months later, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, seeking to recover a balance on what appears to be the same account. The notice said that as of February 17, 2023, the plaintiff owed $140.20.
- The defendant knew, or should have known, that the debt had already been paid, and should not have initiated any collection attempt, according to the plaintiff’s complaint.
- Believing to have already paid the debt, the plaintiff became very upset, according to the complaint, and concerned that his previous payment was a scam and that his credit score was going to be harmed.
- The plaintiff was forced to expend time and money to mitigate the risk of future financial harm in the form of debt collection informational furnishment, and ultimate dissemination to third parties, according to the complaint.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- The class action seeks to include anyone else living in New York who received a collection letter from the defendant attempting to collect a debt that was previously paid off.
