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.
Collection agencies are often caught in the middle between consumers and the original creditors. When there is a disagreement over the amount of a debt, who is the one that gets in trouble? The collector. A consumer who feels the owner of the apartment building she lived in for 11 months is overcharging her has filed a lawsuit against the collector that the owner is using to try and recover the debt, accusing it of reporting information to the credit bureaus that is incorrect “after several disputes clearly showing the debt is fraudulent.” Among the issues was that the collector only used “form letters” when responding to the plaintiff’s disputes.
The background: The plaintiff leased an apartment and moved out after 11 months. She subsequently received a letter from the apartment building owner, indicating that she would not be receiving her security deposit of $1,050 back, and on top of that, she owed an additional $1,614.28. The letter allegedly had several errors in it, such as the amount of the security deposit that the plaintiff made was only $750.
- The plaintiff contacted the assistant manager and the manager of the building, who said he would look into situation and get back to her, which he never did.
- A month later, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant, attempting to collect on the $1,614.28 that was said to be owed.
- The defendant made several calls to the plaintiff, and when the plaintiff explained the debt was not owed, the representatives became “were rude and unprofessional,” according to the complaint.
- A few weeks later, the plaintiff received an email from the owner, indicating the amount that was now owed was $219.28. The email included copies of a ledger that had handwritten notes on it, was still reflecting the wrong security deposit amount, and failed to address the plaintiff’s dispute.
- The plaintiff subsequently disputed the debt with the defendant through its portal and allegedly never received a response.
- The defendant sent the plaintiff another letter, this time attempting to collect on the $219.28.
- The plaintiff then disputed the debts with the credit reporting agencies.
- The plaintiff sued her landlord and obtained a judgment confirming she did not owe the debt.
- “While the plaintiff was thorough … at all times, Defendant merely responded with form letters that failed to take into account any of the specifics identified” in the disputes, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1602e(8), 1692e(10), and 1602f(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it reported a “fraudulent debt” to the credit reporting agencies and attempted to collect on a debt that was fraudulent and incorrect.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating North Carolina Collection Agency Act by falsely representing the plaintiff owed money and attempting to collect money that was not expressly authorized by the lease agreement.
