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.
In terms of details and significance, there isn’t a lot to this particular complaint. But it serves as a reminder to collection operations about the importance of how to handle communications from consumers that are disputes, refusals to pay, or requests to cease communication and that one response does not always fit all. It also speaks to the trend of marking any of these types of communications as disputes and how that may not always be the best course of action.
The background: Last month, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant that attempted to collect on an unpaid debt. A week later, the plaintiff sent an email back to the defendant, stating “I refuse to pay.”
- That same day, the defendant responded to the plaintiff’s refusal with an email of its own, indicating they would contact the original creditor to obtain additional information, and that they would respond after completing an investigation.
- The response from the defendant to his refusal to pay confused the plaintiff, according to the complaint, because he had not disputed any portion of the alleged debt; he was just refusing to pay it.
- The plaintiff accused the defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mischaracterizing the refusal to pay as a dispute and communicating this allegedly false information to the client.
- The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer actual damages in the form of anger, loss of productive time, harassment, anxiety, emotional distress, and humiliation, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by failing to cease communication after receiving written notice from the plaintiff, and Section 1692e(8) by knowingly communicating false information to the client that the plaintiff was disputing the account.
