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.
An individual has filed lawsuits against two different collection operations for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to collect a debt after the individual communicated a refusal to pay. Coincidentally, the collection operations both responded within hours to the individual’s refusal to pay message, which was also sent via email. One of the defendants inquired about whether the plaintiff would be eligible for financial assistance and the other offered “customizable payment options.” What are the odds?
The background: Back in February, the plaintiff received emails from the two defendants. One email was sent on February 18 and the other was sent on February 26. In both cases, according to the complaint, the plaintiff responded to the emails the day they were received with the same message: “I will not pay this debt. I have no money.”
- In both cases, the defendants replied to the refusal to pay within hours.
- Defendant number one sent a reply 30 minutes after the plaintiff sent his refusal indicating that it had received the plaintiff’s email and offered customizable payment options.
- Defendant number two sent a reply five minutes after receiving the plaintiff’s refusal and asked if the plaintiff might be eligible for financial assistance.
The claims: Both complaints accuse the defendants of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA for allegedly continuing to collect on the debts after receiving notice that the plaintiff was refusing to pay them.
- The complaints also accuse the defendants of violating Sections 1692c, 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA, along with sections of Regulation F.
- Both complaints were filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
- Neither case details the concrete injuries that the plaintiff may have suffered as a result of the defendants’ actions.
Read complaint #1. Read complaint #2
