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.
Navigating the new world of digital collections can be tricky and is opening up new litigation doors that the industry has never really had to deal with before. In this case, a collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit because it provided website addresses to two different payment portals — one for the original creditor and one for its own portal — in separate collection letters that were sent to the plaintiff.
The background: Back in April, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant for an unpaid debt owed to a pest control company. The letter offered the plaintiff to pay the debt online, using a website address that appears to be tied to the pest control company. The letter also stated, “When your payment is received, we will remove this record from our active collection files.” Finally, the letter informed the plaintiff, “to guarantee accurate posting, remit to the address below” and included the original creditor’s mailing address.
- About three weeks later, the plaintiff received another letter from the defendant. This time, the letter included the payment portal for the defendant, and instructed the plaintiff to mail a check or money order to the defendant. It also stated, “upon clearance of payment it is the customer’s responsibility to inform [original creditor] that service is to be reinstated.”
- By offering two different websites for payments, the plaintiff claims to have been left “highly” confused and feeling “very skeptical” about the validity of the debt.
- Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed, if payment was made to the original creditor, how would the defendant know that the account should be removed from collections?
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(10) and 1692f of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else living in Texas who received multiple collection letters from the defendant in which one stated payment should be made to the original creditor and the other said that payment should be made to the defendant.
