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 collection law firm is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of a Model Validation Notice it sent to the consumer that had two issues — one that many will find familiar and one that is less common.
The background: Back in March 2024, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid homeowners association debt.
- The notice included an itemization table, although there was one addition to items listed — a $275 charge “for the demand” in addition to the normal line items for interest, fees, and costs. The total amount that was owed was $3,729.04.
- On top of this, the notice was not dated.
- The plaintiff admits in the complaint that it’s “unknown” what the demand is referring to, but if it is related to the cost of sending the notice, then the plaintiff has some concerns because “$275 was not expended in the sending of a computer-generated collection letter.” (It’s a notice, not a letter. 🙂 )
- Making the matter worse, according to the plaintiff, is that the notice already included $202.78 in fees and costs, in addition to the demand fee.
- The uncertainty over the fees led the plaintiff to suffer from emotional distress, acute nervousness, and severe anxiety, according to the complaint.
- The lack of a date led the plaintiff to not make a payment, which then hurt his credit score when the defendant began furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else who received a collection letter from the defendant where the letter included a fee that was excessive and unreasonable. The complaint also seeks to create a sub-class of individuals who received undated letters from the defendant.
