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 major downsides to reporting on complaints is that not only do they tell one side of the story, but in a lot of cases, the story they tell is confusing, generates more questions, and are often riddled with inconsistencies. Case in point is this complaint, in which a plaintiff is accusing a collection operation of violating Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by contacting him after he requested communications be ceased and for using hostile language during one of those communications. But the details of what happened tell a slightly different story.
The background: Back in June 2023, the plaintiff allegedly began receiving phone calls from the defendant. During one of those calls, the plaintiff informed the defendant that he was facing financial hardship, but intended “to make payment,” according to the complaint. The plaintiff also “demanded” that the defendant stop calling his cell phone.
- The next paragraph states, “Confused, Plaintiff responded that he did not owe the purported subject consumer debt as he had no association with the referenced medical facility.” But didn’t he just claim he intended to make payment?
- The defendant continued to attempt to communicate with the plaintiff, according to the complaint. The plaintiff answered one of those calls last April and was “subjected to hostility and judgment” from the representative because the debt was not paid. The complaint doesn’t include any additional details about what was said by the representative.
The claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA, as well as Section 1006.14(b)(2) and 1006.14(h) of Regulation F because it continued to place calls after the plaintiff orally revoked consent to be contacted.
