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 is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Texas state law after it allegedly denied confirming to the plaintiff that a debt was not his and denied receiving an email from the plaintiff seeking confirmation of that fact when, during a conversation the previous day, a different representative had indicated that the Social Security number attached to the account did not match the plaintiff, who was being contacted about the debt.
The background: In July, the plaintiff began receiving phone calls from the defendant. In August, the two sides finally engaged in a conversation and the plaintiff was informed the defendant was seeking repayment of a debt. The plaintiff made an offer to pay the debt, but the offer was contingent on the defendant verifying information about the debt first.
- That was when the plaintiff learned the Social Security number attached to the account did not match his Social Security number, according to the complaint.
- The representative of the defendant confirmed the debt was not owed by the plaintiff, and that the defendant would cease contacting him.
- The plaintiff sent the defendant an email, seeking confirmation that the account was not his, that it would be removed from the system, and that the information would not be furnished to the credit reporting agencies.
- The next day, a representative of the defendant contacted the plaintiff. The representative denied that anyone from the company had spoken with the plaintiff on the previous day, and denied receiving any email from the plaintiff, according to the complaint.
- The defendant continued attempting to collect on the debt, which caused the plaintiff to suffer an invasion of privacy, confusion, aggravation, emotional distress, and being the target of harassing and unwarranted collection efforts.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d(5), 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and Section 1692f of the FDCPA, along with allegedly violating sections of Regulation F, specifically Section 1006.14(b)(2), 1006.14(b)(2)(i)(B), and 1006.14(h), which prohibits a collector from placing a telephone call within a period of seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation in connection with the collection of such debt, and attempting to communicate with a consumer via a communication channel that the consumer has requested the collector not use.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the Texas Debt Collection Act.
