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 company is defending itself against nearly three dozen lawsuits filed in Florida federal courts alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act because it attempted to collect on unpaid parking fees. All of the suits have been filed in the past six weeks and all of the plaintiffs appear to be represented by the same attorney.
The background: In reviewing a sampling of lawsuits, the claims appear to be similar. The plaintiff receives a letter from the defendant, on behalf of the owner of a parking lot. The letter “demands” an amount be paid because a vehicle registered to the plaintiff entered and exited a parking lot without paying.
- Each of the lots appear to use scanning technology to read the license plates of vehicles as they enter and exit the lot. The defendant submits a request to the Florida Department of Transportation to identify the name and address of the individual who owns the vehicle that entered and exited the lot.
- The defendant then sends the letter to the owner of the vehicle, also known as the plaintiff.
- The letters provide pictures of the license plates as well as information related to when it entered and exited the lot in question.
- The defendant allegedly fails to disclose information required by Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA within five days of its initial communication with the plaintiff.
The claims: The suits allege the defendant is violating the DPPA by accessing the personal information of the plaintiff because the DPPA does not allow for information to be disclosed related to parking facilities or collection attempts, according to the complaints.
- The suits also accuse the defendant of violating Sections 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA because it meets the statute’s definition of a debt collector but failed to provide the plaintiffs with “sufficient notice of the information” required under the statute.
- The defendant filed a motion to consolidate 16 of the cases, and the case has been stayed while a motion to remand the cases back to state court where they were originally filed is being considered by the judge.
