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.
There are two sides to every story, we are taught. We are also taught that when there are two sides to every story, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. A collection operation and a creditor — the owner of an apartment building — are facing individual and class-action allegations over the amount that a son and his father are being told is due because the son moved his belongings out of his apartment a week after the lease on the unit had expired.
The background: The plaintiff — who lives in Georgia — signed a lease for an apartment in Michigan to go to school. His father signed on as a guarantor.
- On August 7, 2023, the plaintiff received a call from the apartment owner informing him that he was supposed to return the keys to the unit on August 4 when the lease expired. The plaintiff believed the lease was set to expire on September 1. The property manager allegedly told the plaintiff that if he came back and removed his belongings and returned the keys right away, any late fees and charges would be waived.
- The plaintiff drove from Georgia to Michigan the next day and removed his belongings from the unit and returned his keys.
- The day after that, the plaintiff received an invoice from the building’s owner for $6,285 in fees and charges, including a holding fee of $5,200 and more than $1,000 in damages.
- The plaintiff allegedly contacted the defendant to dispute the charges and resolve the issue, but nobody ever replied to his email or would even speak with him over the telephone, according to the complaint.
- The account was then placed with a collection operation — the other defendant.
- Eight months later, the father’s application for a home equity line of credit was denied, due in large part because the defendant was now reporting the debt as unpaid, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiffs disputed the debt with the collection operation and the credit reporting agencies, and the collection operation verified that the amount being collected was accurate. The only response the plaintiffs claimed to have ever received from the collection operation was a letter stating it had reviewed the dispute and found it “lacking in any specific facts or information which would allow us to conduct an investigation.” The plaintiffs claimed to have sent a “detailed, three-page dispute letter” to the defendant.
The claims: The complaint accuses the collection operation of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), 1692f, and 1692f(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it attempted to collect a holdover fee that was in excess of what was stipulated in the lease agreement that the plaintiff signed. It seeks to include anyone else who received a collection letter from the defendant that also attempted to collect a debt on behalf of the apartment owner which contained a similar holding fee in excess of what was contractually stipulated.
- The complaint also includes individual actions against the defendants for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.
