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 in North Dakota after sending the plaintiff a Model Validation Notice, with the plaintiff claiming that notice was misleading and confusing because it did not state whether interest on the debt was continuing to accrue or if future interest charges would be waived.
The background: Back in April, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, seeking to collect on an unpaid medical debt of $284.89.
- The notice immediately confused the plaintiff, according to the complaint, because she had never heard of the defendant before.
- The itemization table indicated that between the itemization date and the date on the MVN (which was a span of about 30 days) $0.28 in interest had been added to the balance that was owed.
- The crux of the plaintiff’s complaint, then, was that the notice made no reference to whether interest was continuing to accrue or if any future interest charges would be waived.
- Furthermore, the plaintiff wasn’t even sure if interest was allowed to accrue on the underlying debt.
- Not knowing the true amount that was due left the plaintiff confused and uncertain about the notice’s legitimacy, according to the complaint.
The claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g(a) of the FDCPA by unfairly attempting to collect interest when not stating whether interest would continue to accrue or stating that it is allowed to collect interest on the underlying debt.
- The suit seeks to include anyone who received an initial communication letter from the defendant that did not state that interest was accruing while interest was continuing to accrue or if further interest charges were going to be waived.
Learn more. The MVN in question
