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 plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against a collection operation, accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to properly validate a debt and contacting him at inconvenient times, and is seeking the discharge of the debt was well as $30,000 in actual and statutory damages.
The background: Back in May, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Two weeks later, the plaintiff also sent a dispute directly to the defendant via certified mail.
- After receiving the correspondence from the plaintiff, the defendant called him 14 different times over the course of three weeks from September into October. All of the calls were made at inconvenient times because it is “evident” from a review of the plaintiff’s credit report that he is currently employed and yet the defendant still opted to try and contact him during business hours.
- Also catching the plaintiff’s notice was an enforcement action in September between the CFPB and the defendant that banned the defendant from collecting on unpaid student loans. The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter informing him that a different company would be taking over the payments. The plaintiff never mentions in the complaint whether he answered any of the defendant’s calls in order to ascertain what the intent of the communication was.
- The defendant’s actions were deceptive and unfair because if the plaintiff was aware of the restrictions that were placed on the defendant’s ability to collect on student loans, the defendant would have “taken advantage of the Plaintiff and received financial gain from their actions,” according to the complaint.
The claims: The plaintiff (who technically accuses a non-existent defendant) claims the defendant violating Sections 1692c(c), 1692d(5), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA.
- The plaintiff claims the defendant’s actions cause him mental anguish, emotional distress, and damaged his creditworthiness.
