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.
Medical debt can be very tricky, and one collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after sending three collection letters – each with different reference/account numbers but each trying to collect the same amount – after the plaintiff allegedly submitted proof of payment and the creditor sent a note to the Better Business Bureau saying the plaintiff’s balance was $0.
The background: This past March, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, stating that the plaintiff owed $1,740. In response, the plaintiff disputed the debt, submitting evidence that the balance had already been paid in full, including receipts of payment and statements from her credit card issuer, according to the complaint. The plaintiff also lodged complaints with both the Better Business Bureau and the state dental board, arguing that the original creditor had engaged in illegal double billing.
- In April, the creditor communicated to the BBB that it had written off the balance, leaving the plaintiff’s account at zero dollars.
- Days later, the defendant allegedly sent a second collection notice, again demanding the $1,740, but this time with a different reference number. The plaintiff again disputed the debt, forwarding the previous proof of payment as well as communicating directly with the defendant’s representative.
- The plaintiff received a third collection notice on June 5, with yet another reference number but still for the same balance.
The claims: The defendant is accused of violating sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA, relating to unfair and deceptive practices. The plaintiff contends that the defendant engaged in harassment (1692d) and misrepresentation (1692e) by repeatedly attempting to collect on a debt that it knew was already paid. The defendant’s repeated issuance of collection notices with different reference numbers for the same debt is cited as both misleading and intended to confuse the plaintiff, in violation of section 1692e. Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that the defendant failed to cease collection activities after being informed of the dispute, a direct violation of section 1692g(b).
- The complaint seeks to include all consumers who were subject to similar conduct by the defendant.
