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.
This one definitely gets filed under the “no good deed goes unpunished” category of lawsuits. A collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit because the letter it sent to the plaintiff offering to settle an unpaid debt for 50% of the balance did not have an expiration date on it, which apparently created a false sense of urgency, and because the debt was not itemized.
The background: Last June, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, in regards to an unpaid debt of $538.60. The letter offered to settle the debt for a one-time payment of $269.30, 50% of what was owed.
- The letter also included a disclosure, informing the plaintiff that she had 30 days after receiving the notice to dispute the validity of all or any portion of the debt, and that if the plaintiff notified the defendant that the debt was being disputed, the defendant would obtain verification of the debt, as well as the name and address of the current creditor. The letter also informed the plaintiff that the communication was an attempt to collect on a debt.
- The complaint alleges that the letter was the initial communication between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- What the defendant allegedly forgot in the letter was to include a deadline for which the plaintiff had to make the one-time payment.
- This placed the plaintiff in the position of having to choose between paying the reduced amount, rather than asserting her rights to dispute the debt for fear of losing out on the offer, according to the complaint.
- Furthermore, the plaintiff worried that disputing the debt would eliminate the opportunity to settle the debt for the reduced amount.
- This pressure caused the plaintiff to suffer significant distress, anxiety, and confusion, according to the complaint.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of failing to itemize the debt and provide required information about contacting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else living in North Carolina who received an initial collection letter from the defendant that failed to include any of the itemization information required under Regulation F and provided an offer to settle the debt which did not explicitly extend beyond the 30-day dispute window.
Read the complaint. Read the letter
