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.
Right from the jump, there is a lot to unpack in this complaint, but I think it includes a lot of the potential concerns that companies have with respect to multi-channel communications and highlights what complaints may start to look more like as the industry engages more via email, text, and chat with consumers. It also highlights how attempts to collect with empathy can be used against companies in the credit and collection industry.
The background: Back in December, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant. The letter said, in part, that the defendant wanted “to help” the plaintiff out and that the defendant was “here to help.” The letter also informed the plaintiff that she had been approved for an interest free payment plan and that she would not be charged late fees or other fees as part of any repayment plan.
- Ten days later, an attorney representing the plaintiff send an email to four senior executives at the defendant informing them that the plaintiff was represented by counsel. The same notification was sent via mail to the address listed with the North Carolina Secretary of State for the defendant.
- Five days after that, the plaintiff informed the defendant via web chat that she was represented by counsel.
- The plaintiff’s counsel sent two more emails to the senior executives following up on his email informing them that the plaintiff was represented by counsel.
- The defendant allegedly sent the plaintiff a communication during this time attempting to collect on the debt.
- The plaintiff also started another web chat session with the defendant in which she allegedly told the representative that she was worried about the debt and it was causing her to lose sleep because she did not fully understand who the defendant was and the nature of the debt.
- The representative on the other end of the chat attempted to answer the plaintiff’s questions but also attempted to collect on the debt, according to the complaint, by offering to set up a payment arrangement. The plaintiff said that she was represented by counsel and the representative allegedly said she could set up a payment arrangement and asked the plaintiff how much she could afford.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e of the FDCPA by claiming it wanted to help the plaintiff out when its “financial interests are in direct conflict” the the plaintiff’s and because the defendant “merely wants to coerce” the plaintiff into paying the debt, making the statement misleading and deceptive, according to the complaint. The defendant further allegedly violated Section 1692e by indicating the plaintiff had been approved for an interest free payment plan when it waived interest as a policy, according to the complaint.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692b(6) and 1692c(a)(2) by attempting to collect on the debt after being notified that the plaintiff was being represented by an attorney.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating provisions of the North Carolina Collection Agency Act for largely the same reasons, although it tosses in a claim because the defendant’s website included information about its Google rating, but did not provide the reviews showing how that rating was attained, as well as claims made by the defendant on its website.
