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.
One of the most unfair aspects of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is that it compels collection operations to be experts on laws and regulations that are completely outside the scope of collections. Take, for example, this lawsuit, in which a collection operation is facing class-action claims that it violated the FDCPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly attempted to collect on vehicle storage fees that exceeded what the city of San Diego allows by law. On top of that, the details surrounding the events that led to the lawsuit being filed also strain the boundaries of credibility.
The background: Back in August of 2024, the plaintiff, who was living in Arizona, lent his car to his brother. While his brother was in possession of the vehicle, it broke down. The breakdown occurred in San Diego.
- The plaintiff was so committed to his full-time work, according to the complaint — that he was unable to go to San Diego and recover his vehicle. It was ultimately towed from where it broke down on September 20.
- When the vehicle went unclaimed, it was sold at auction on December 3.
- This past June, the plaintiff was contacted by the defendant to collect on the amount that was owed after the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle were applied to the balance from towing and storing the vehicle.
- The plaintiff asked for a breakdown of the fees and received a validation letter detailing he owed $2,763.54. This broke down into a towing fee of $259 and $45 per day to store the vehicle. This, according to the complaint, exceeded the maximum storage fee allowed by San Diego of $41 per day.
The claims: The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(8), and 1692f of the FDCPA by attempting to collect on excessive fees and fees that are not allowed by contract or law. The complaint also accuses the collector of violating the FDCPA by reporting information it knew to be false to the credit reporting agencies.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the RFDCPA by attempting to collect on fees not allowed by law, as well as the California Vehicle Code.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone who resides in California and has received collection efforts from the defendant for storage or towing fees that were at the behest or request of law enforcement where the fees exceeded the maximum amount allowed by the local municipality.
