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.
You know what they say about the road to that place down there … A plaintiff has filed a lawsuit accusing a collection operation of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly failed to report that the debt was being disputed, even though the plaintiff did not respond to a request for more information from the defendant after the original dispute notification was made.
The background: Back in October, the plaintiff submitted a dispute notice and cease-and-desist request to the defendant. The plaintiff requested verification of the debt, proof that the defendant was authorized to collect on the debt, and the cessation of any credit reporting or other communications relate to the debt if no verification could be provided, according to the complaint.
- Four days later, the defendant sent a response to the plaintiff, indicating it could not identify the account in question and requesting additional information, which the plaintiff refers to as “sensitive personal documents” to assist in identifying the account.
- There is no mention in the complaint of whether the plaintiff provided the additional information that was being requested, but the defendant allegedly failed to notify the credit reporting agencies that the account was being disputed.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by failing to note that the account was being disputed, Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA by making unauthorized communications, and Section 1692e by making a false or misleading representation about the debt.
- The plaintiff is seeking $1,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA and $1,000 in statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as actual damages.
- The plaintiff also wants the defendant to cease reporting the debt to the credit bureaus until proper verification is completed and notifying the credit bureaus that the debt is disputed.
