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.
Convincing borrowers to repay debts is not always the easiest of conversations, often because there isn’t a good answer if a consumer asks, “what’s going to happen if I don’t pay it?” That conversation becomes even trickier when the statute of limitations has passed, along with the period for which the debt can appear on the consumer’s credit report. In today’s world of trying to make the process of repaying debts more consumer friendly, one collector is now facing a class action claims that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the titles it gave to the repayment options in a communication with a consumer allegedly did not align with the status of the debt.
The background: The plaintiff received a letter back in February 2024 attempting to collect on an unpaid credit card debt of $403.67 and informed the plaintiff that the defendant wanted “to make it easy to start putting this debt behind” him. The letter offered three repayment plans: one payment of $222.02, or 55% of the balance, three payments of $74.93 each, or six payments of $38.16 each. The letter indicated the name of the one payment option was “Fast Track,” the three-payment option was titled “Solid Progress” and the six-payment option was called “Slow and Steady.”
- The letter also included a disclosure informing the plaintiff that, due to the age of the debt, the defendant would not file a lawsuit or report payment or non-payment to a credit bureau. The disclosure also noted that depending on the state in which the plaintiff resided, making a payment or making a promise to pay may restart the statute of limitations.
- This confused the plaintiff, according to the complaint. If the defendant couldn’t file a lawsuit or couldn’t report it to the credit bureaus, what financial burden was being alleviated if the plaintiff repaid the debt, the complaint asked.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA as well as state law in Florida.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else in Florida who received a letter or collection letter from the defendant.
