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.
As has been mentioned before, sometimes the information included in a complaint lacks all the relevant details. I’m sure this is intentional in some cases and unintentional in others, and at the outset, I admit I have no idea which side this case falls into. But even though the plaintiff failed to include the letter in question that is the basis for this lawsuit, it still is worth mentioning. A collector is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it sent a letter to the plaintiff after the plaintiff indicated a refusal to pay the debt; a letter which included a payment voucher that the plaintiff claims was an attempt to collect on the debt.
The background: Back in early October, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid fintech debt. Later that month, the plaintiff replied to the email. The reply stated: “I’m not paying you a dime. I don’t owe you anything.”
- In December, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant. The letter included a payment voucher with “detailed instructions” for remitting a payment and included a space for identifying the amount that was being paid and the payment submission options. The complaint doesn’t include the letter as an exhibit so it’s unclear whether this was a Model Validation Notice or some other letter.
- By including a payment voucher, the letter became an attempt to collect and was a direct solicitation for payment, the plaintiff claims.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff after it was notified that the plaintiff refused to pay the debt.
- The plaintiff claims to have suffered an invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, anger, anxiety, decreased productivity at work, frustration, and other negative emotions.
- The plaintiff is seeking actual damages, statutory damages, and costs.
- The case was originally filed in Florida state court, but the defendant removed it to federal court.
