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.
The itemization date in a Model Validation Notice. When Regulation F was introduced, but before it went into effect, the itemization date was one of the biggest issues that companies faced. There were multiple options to choose from but the MVN didn’t allow for companies to identify which date was being chosen, so, to the consumer, it could seem completely arbitrary. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the Model Validation Notice that was sent to the consumer used an itemization date that was the same date the letter was mailed to the consumer, yet still informed the recipient that fees had been incurred on the unpaid debt, amounting to 25% of what was owed.
The background: The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice that was dated August 7, 2024. In the itemization table, the plaintiff was informed that, as of August 7, 2024, $2,401.20 was owed on the debt. Between August 7, 2024 and today, $528.26 in fees had been charged to the account, raising the total amount of the debt to $2,929.46.
- It’s impossible for the debt to have accrued $528.26 in fees on the same day the letter was sent, the complaint alleges. Furthermore, the amount of fees that were added to the account were “absurd, confusing, highly misleading, … and beyond reasonable,” according to the complaint.
- Such a fee gave the plaintiff “sufficient reason to suspect the veracity and validity” of the debt and led to not taking any action on the debt.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 16982e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else living in New York who received an initial collection letter from the defendant in which a fee was charged before any time had passed from the itemization date of the debt.
