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 collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit because the plaintiff is alleging the Model Validation Notice she received made contradictory statements about the duration of the window in which she had to seek validation of the debt and because the notice did not clearly indicate when the validation period ended.
The background: Back in February, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. It’s probably worth noting that the MVN was dated. Rather than specify when the validation period was set to expire, the notice in question informed the plaintiff that she had to call or write to the defendant “within 30 days” to dispute all or part of the debt. The notice informed the plaintiff that if she did write to the defendant within 30 days, it would stop collection efforts. The notice also informed the plaintiff that disputes could be submitted electronically via the defendant’s website.
- On the back of the notice were a number of disclosures. One of the disclosures informed the plaintiff, “unless you, the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of this notice, dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, we will assume the debt to be valid …”
- It’s also probably worth noting that there appears to be some other changes or content that is missing from the MVN that was submitted by the plaintiff with her complaint.
- The information on the front of the notice fails to indicate that the dispute must be received within 30 days after the plaintiff received the notice and just says “within 30 days,” which the complaint alleges is ambiguous and misleading.
- Moreover, because the dispute language on the front and back of the notice isn’t consistent, the consumer questions the legitimacy of the collector’s attempts to collect on the alleged debt.
- Finally, the disclosure on the back of the notice fails to indicate that the dispute must be submitted in writing.
The claims: The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692g(a), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else living in New Jersey who received an initial collection letter from the defendant that stated disputes must be made within 30 days without stating from consumer’s “receipt of notice.”
Learn more. See the MVN in question.
