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.
I’m the kind of guy who watches a movie and loves to point out the plot holes and inconsistencies (I’ve been told by a lot of people that this is an annoying thing to do while watching said movie). It’s with that same trained eye that I read complaints filed by consumers against collection operations and the gaps just jump out off the page. Let’s see if you can spot them in this complaint like I did. A collection operation is being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in North Carolina over attempts to collect an unpaid rent debt.
The background: These are the allegations, in the order they are set forth in the complaint. Last December 18, the defendant began to call the plaintiff to collect on an alleged debt. The plaintiff spoke with a representative of the defendant and told her that he could make payments of $200 per week. The representative urged the plaintiff to take out a personal loan to pay the alleged debt and asked the plaintiff to call back the next day to discuss the loan application.
- The defendant then called the plaintiff at least seven times during the next seven days to collect on the alleged debt.
- On December 18, an attorney representing the plaintiff sent an email to the defendant, informing it that the plaintiff was representing and requesting the defendant cease and desist (it doesn’t say whether the cease and desist was related to communication or collection of the debt).
- Despite the notification, the defendant allegedly continued to call the plaintiff to try and collect on the debt.
- Then, on December 20, the defendant withdrew $200 from the plaintiff’s bank account, allegedly without the plaintiff’s written authorization.
- Do you have the same questions I have? How did the defendant get the plaintiff’s bank account information? Why did it take out the money if the plaintiff was being encouraged to take out a personal loan?
The claims: The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692c(a)(2), 1692c(c), 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692f(1), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA, for, among other allegations:
- communicating with an individual who was represented by an attorney
- communicating with the plaintiff despite receiving a cease-and-desist request
- calling the plaintiff at least seven times in seven days
- creating the false impression that it could withdraw funds from the plaintiff’s bank account without authorization
- overshadowing the plaintiff’s right to dispute the debt by suggesting that the plaintiff take out a personal loan to repay the debt
