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.
What is the going rate that a consumer thinks she is entitled to if a collection operation communicates after receiving a cease communication request? In the state of Washington, at least, the going rate for a demand is $6,000, according to a lawsuit filed last month.
The details of this particular case are relatively straightforward and there isn’t much in the way of what happened that distinguishes this case from any of the many other similar cases that are filed alleging a collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not honoring a request from the consumer to cease communications. But this particular lawsuit included the demand being made by the plaintiff, so I thought it was worth mentioning, to give the industry a sense of what consumers think they are entitled to in these kinds of situations.
The background: Back in December 2023, the plaintiff received a text message from the defendant, regarding the collection of a debt and offering to settle the balance for less than the full amount owed.
- The plaintiff responded to the message, saying “I refuse to pay.?
- A month later, the defendant sent another text message to the plaintiff, also offering a discount to settle the account.
- In August, the plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant, alleging violations of the FDCPA.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by failing to cease communication with the consumer after being notified that the consumer refused to pay the debt.
- The suit also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1006.6(c)(1) of Regulation F by communicating or attempting to communicate with the consumer despite being notified in writing that the consumer refused to pay the debt or that the consumer wants the collector to cease further communication.
- Along with seeking actual and statutory damages from the defendant, the plaintiff is also seeking a demand amount of $6,000.
