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.
If you got letters and phone calls attempting to collect on a debt that you did not believe was yours, what would you do? A consumer has accused a collection operation of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for attempting to collect on a debt that the plaintiff believes he does not owe and the circumstances and details of the situation just seem a little odd.
The background: “Some years ago,” the plaintiff received collection letters and phone calls from the defendant, attempting to collect on a debt owed to a cell phone carrier. The plaintiff was confused, because he did not have an account with the defendant — or with any carrier for that matter (he was on his brother’s cell phone account).
- Knowing that he did not owe the debt, the plaintiff did what anybody would do when contacted by a debt collector, he assumed his identity had been stolen and filed a police report.
- Nothing happened for several years until 2024, when the plaintiff noticed that the defendant was reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies and it was showing on the plaintiff’s credit report as an open collections account with a balance in excess of $1,000.
- The plaintiff called the defendant to dispute the debt and to request validation. When he did not receive a response, according to the complaint, he reached out again.
- When he still did not get a response, the plaintiff contacted the cell phone carrier, who confirmed there was no account where the plaintiff was listed as the account owner and that the only account associated with the plaintiff was the account belonging to the plaintiff’s brother.
- The tradeline was subsequently removed from the plaintiff’s credit report.
- Despite this, the plaintiff has still allegedly received two collection letters from the defendant attempting to collect on the debt.
- The plaintiff then hired an attorney, who sent an “informal” demand letter to the defendant, attempting to resolve the alleged violations of the FDCPA “informally.”
- The attorney contested the liability of the his client, but acknowledged that the defendant had attempted to collect on the debt in question. The two sides engaged in some negotiations, at which point the defendant’s attorney stopped responding to the plaintiff’s attorney, which resulted in the filing of this complaint.
- Fearing that the defendant would escalate its collection efforts left the plaintiff feeling anxious and unable to sleep, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA.
