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.
Maybe the consumer was looking to save himself the cost of filing an additional lawsuit in this one by alleging two different collection operations both violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in separate incidents that appear to be completely unrelated to one another — one is accused of failing to properly validate a debt and sending communications with different balances and the other for putting the mini-Miranda disclosure on the section page of a collection letter.
The background: Back in January, the plaintiff received two collection letters, one from each of the defendants. The first was attempting to collect a credit card debt with a balance of $23,515.30. The second was attempting to collect a debt owed to a fitness facility for $95.
- A week after receiving the first letter, the plaintiff send the defendant a written validation request.
- A few weeks later, the defendant sent a letter back to the plaintiff. The letter stated the balance that was now due was $23,974.25 while also failing to provide all the account statements, leaving the charge-off date field blank, and sending a statement that included fees added after the account was placed in collections, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff also received correspondence from the original creditor, which indicated the amount due was now $24,335.31. The letter from the creditor also had different dates for the date of first delinquency and the last payment date than the statements that the plaintiff was provided.
- The complaint accused the other defendant of violating the FDCPA by “improperly” placing the mini-Miranda on the second page of the letter rather than at the beginning, “where it would be clearly visible to consumers.”
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the first defendant of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692g(b), 1692e(11), and 1692f of the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amount that was owed, failing to provide a complete validation of the debt, continuing collection activities while the debt was being validated, and adding new fees. The complaint also accuses the first defendant of failing to disclose that the communication was from a debt collector.
- The second defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692e(11), 1692g(b), and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA for not placing the mini-Miranda on the first page of the letter, failing to validate the debt, and for attempting to collect an amount not authorized by the underlying agreement.
