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.
What? No mention of issues with the scissors? A collection law firm is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F because it didn’t mention in a Model Validation Notice whether interest on the debt was still accruing and that the statute of limitations had expired, while also listing two different addresses. It’s a greatest hits of claims that companies have faced with respect to collection letters and notices in recent years.
The background: Back in January, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. The notice included an itemization table, which indicated that as of March 16, 2020, the plaintiff owed $4,637.59, which included $1,046.60.
- The notice did not specify whether future interest was being waived or if it was continuing to accrue, which is a material term that that the defendant omitted, according to the complaint.
- The itemization date that was used — March 16, 2020 — was also beyond the four-year statute of limitations in Pennsylvania, according to the complaint, and there was no mention in the notice that the debt was no longer legally enforceable.
- Finally, the addresses at the top of the notice and in the tear-off portion were different, which caused the plaintiff “significant confusion” because she wasn’t sure where payments or correspondence should be sent. Given that the address at the top of the notice was larger and listed first, the plaintiff “reasonably believed” that address was the correct one, and only became more uncertain when it said “mail this form to:” above the address used in the tear-off portion.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692g(a), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA.
- The complaint attempts to create a class of plaintiffs who received an initial collection letter from the defendant that did not state whether interest was still accruing or waived on the debt, and two sub-classes — one for which the statute of limitations had expired, and one for individuals who received similar notices from the defendant that also listed two different mailing addresses.
