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 consumer has filed a lawsuit against a collection operation, accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the account number listed on the Model Validation Notice that he received was different than the account number listed on a collection letter he received from a different collector attempting to recover the same debt at an earlier time.
The background: The plaintiff received a notice from the defendant, seeking to collect on a debt of $910.80 owed to a college. The notice indicated the account number ended in 7930 and had a file number that ended in 9732.
- Prior to receiving this notice, the plaintiff received another letter, which attempted to collect on a debt of $910.80 that was owed to the same college. This letter referenced an account number that ended in 8217.
- The discrepancy in the account numbers caused the plaintiff to become confused and worried that he was being misled, according to the complaint. A least sophisticated consumer could become confused and think that two different collectors were attempting to collect the same debt under different account numbers.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA because the letter was dated May 3, 2024 and said the plaintiff had until June 12, 2024 to dispute all or part of the debt, but the plaintiff claims the letter was not mailed on May 3 and that his validation rights were overshadowed.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because the plaintiff was confused, misled, and deceived by the different account numbers and was unsure as to which account the alleged debt was owed.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692g(a), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA because the defendant allegedly shortened the validation period for the plaintiff to dispute all or part of the debt.
