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 a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a Model Validation Notice to a consumer living in Kentucky who had previously disputed the debt’s existence when a collection attempt was made by a different collection operation.
The background: Back in October 2024, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid utility debt of $735.90. Though the plaintiff did have an account with the creditor/utility company, she was up-to-date with her payments and did not have an outstanding balance, according to the complaint.
- The creditor had assigned the same debt, which had the same balance, to another collection operation previously. The plaintiff had disputed the debt, provided a police report, and advised that the debt was not hers. The complaint doesn’t state why a police report was included, but those are generally only used when identity theft has occurred.
- The creditor conducted an investigation — the complaint doesn’t specify whether the investigation took place after the first dispute or after the second MVN was sent — and determined that the account in question was for service provided at an address in Indiana, where the plaintiff has never lived, according to the complaint.
- The defendant’s actions left the plaintiff feeling agitated, emotionally distressed, and suffering from severe anxiety, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA by attempting to collect an alleged debt from a non-responsible party.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else living in the state of Kentucky who received a collection letter from the defendant that attempted to collect on a consumer debt on behalf of an original creditor where the recipient of the letter was not the responsible party for the alleged debt.
