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.
Complaints can be maddeningly frustrating for what they claim, and for what they don’t say. This case is definitely the latter. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a letter that was allegedly missing required disclosures, and then reporting information about the debt to the credit reporting agencies, without providing the plaintiff with the opportunity to dispute the debt.
The background: Last April, the plaintiff received “an initial letter” from the defendant, according to the complaint. The letter informed the plaintiff that the defendant was the new account holder, and that all future correspondence, including payments and disputes, should be sent to the defendant. The letter allegedly did not contain the amount that was owed or instructions about how to dispute the debt. The complaint does not include the letter as an exhibit.
- The plaintiff allegedly never heard from the defendant again, except when she noted that it was appearing on her credit report.
- Had the plaintiff been informed of her right to dispute the debt, she would have done so, thereby allegedly preventing the defendant from reporting the debt until it was validated, according to the complaint.
- This was a “perfect scheme” from the defendant, according to the complaint, because the letter told the plaintiff where to mail payments, without providing any other direct communications.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. These violations cause the plaintiff to suffer credit harm and emotional damages, according to the complaint.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else living in the United States who received an initial letter from the defendant that did not include details about how the recipients could dispute the debt.
- The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s credit to suffer an injury, which could have been prevented.
