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.
A collection operation and the creditor it was working on behalf of are facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the collector sent two letters, one being a Model Validation Notice, to the plaintiff on the same day, which referenced the same date and attempted to collect the same amount, but had different itemization dates.
The background: The two letters in question were both dated July 19, 2024. One looks exactly like a Model Validation Notice and is attempting to collect on a debt of $928.77, and references April 12, 2022 as the itemization date.
- The second letter, also dated July 19, 2024, has some of the components of a Model Validation Notice, such as the introductory statement, and the data that would be included in an itemization table, but just not formatted like an itemization table. The second letter is also attempting to collect a debt of $928.77, and references the same account number as the first letter, but indicates that the date of default was October 11, 2021.
- The second letter includes some disclosures, but does not include a disclosure informing the plaintiff that the debt could be disputed.
- Receiving two letters that were dated the same day for what appears to be the same debt was “highly disconcerting” to the plaintiff, according to the complaint. The second letter was also allegedly the first one that was received by the plaintiff.
- Not only was it confusing to receive two letters on the same day to collect on the same debt, but it was also harassing, according to the plaintiff.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- It seeks to include anyone else living in the state of New York who received collection letters from the defendant on behalf of the creditor to whom the debt was owed in which multiple collection letters were received on the same date and where at least one of the letters was missing the required language pursuant to Section 1692g of the FDCPA.
