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 little bit of shameless self-promotion today, because the timing is just too coincidental not to do it … Today’s webinar happens to be on the topic of “How to Parse Disputes, Cease Requests, and Other Vague Comments from Consumers” so you can probably guess what the issues are with this particular complaint, but a collection operation is being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it sent a collection letter to an individual after the individual allegedly requested that communications between him and the collection operation be ceased. But, is that what the individual did?
The background: Back in August of 2023, the defendant began furnishing information about a debt to the credit reporting agencies. “Soon thereafter” the plaintiff allegedly initiated disputes related to the debt.
- In July 2024, the plaintiff sent a certified letter to the defendant. In the letter, the plaintiff “clearly” informed the defendant that he would “not be settling this debt.”
- A month later, the plaintiff allegedly received another letter from the defendant, attempting to collect on the disputed debt.
- The defendant’s actions allegedly caused the plaintiff to experience frustration, alarm, confusion, and emotional distress.
- The question, of course, is whether informing a collector that you are not interested in settling a debt constitutes a request to cease communications. If that is all that was said in the letter — it was not included as an exhibit, to the surprise of probably nobody — then was the collector supposed to stop communicating? On top of that, what was in the letter that was sent afterwards?
The claims: The complaint includes a single claim — accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA because the defendant further communicated with the plaintiff after being notified in writing that the plaintiff was declining to pay the debt. But did he? Is saying you’re not interested in settling the same thing as saying you’re not going to repay it at all?
