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 is another case where there isn’t much that led the consumer to file this lawsuit, but it is emblematic of what many collection operations are dealing with on a daily basis that lead to these kinds of cases. It also speaks to the trend of collectors needing to parse the intentions, expectations, and wants of consumers who communicate that they are not willing or able to pay a debt. A collector is being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it treated a refusal to pay as a dispute of the debt.
The background: The plaintiff sent a refusal to pay letter to the defendant via certified mail back in March. A month later, the plaintiff checked her credit report and the tradeline in question was now being reported as disputed by the defendant.
- The plaintiff claims she wasn’t disputing the debt in question when she notified the defendant that she was refusing to pay, and the defendant’s actions misrepresented the nature of the debt and “falsely implied” that the plaintiff was challenging the legitimacy of the account.
- The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, out-of-pocket expenses, and defamation, which manifested in the form of stress, anxiety, worry, headaches, and loss of sleep.
- The refusal to pay letter sent to the defendant was not included as an exhibit with the complaint.
The claims: The lawsuit claims the defendant violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA by communicating false credit information to the credit reporting agencies that the plaintiff was disputing the debt.
- The lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
