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.
One of the last Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuits filed in 2024 was a class-action, accusing the defendant of not including information about when the validation period would end in a communication with the plaintiff. The communication was allegedly an initial communication, but was not the Model Validation Notice, although it did include some components of the MVN, such as the itemization table.
The background: Back in January 2024, the plaintiff received the communication from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid financial obligation. The communication was the initial communication between the plaintiff and the defendant, according to the complaint.
- The communication included an itemization table, which indicated the plaintiff owed $2,325.51 as of May 25, 2022. There were no other charges or payments made on the account since that day, according to the complaint.
- The letter included information about what the plaintiff could do, such as log into the portal to pay the balance, set his communication preferences, and update his contact and account information.
- To those in the industry, the components of the letter will look like what is included in the Model Validation Notice, but the formatting is not the same, nor is all the same information included.
- The letter, according to the complaint, failed to advise the plaintiff that he had a right to dispute the debt and request verification.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692g(a)(3), 1692g(a)(4), and 1602g(a)(5) of the FDCPA by failing to include the required information under the statute.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else in Pennsylvania who received an initial letter from the defendant attempting to collect on a debt owed to the same creditor which failed to include the required validation information.
