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.
This one is a slightly different spin on the trend of cases from consumers who attempt to limit the times or channels where it is convenient to be contacted by a collector. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it sent a text message and “numerous” emails during a time when the plaintiff had informed the defendant that it was inconvenient to be contacts.
The background: Back in October, he plaintiff sent two letters to the defendant, indicating that it was inconvenient to be contacted — including emails and phone calls — between the hours of 8am and 6pm because of his work schedule. The plaintiff requested that any attempts to contact him were made “after this time.” Both letters said the same thing:
I realize that you are attempting to get in touch with me. Please keep in mind that it is inconvenient for you to contact me in any way whatsoever (this includes emails and phone calls) from 8am to 6pm because of my work schedule. You may attempt to contact me regarding this delinquent account after this time.
- Two weeks after the second letter was sent to the defendant, the plaintiff allegedly received a text message at 5:04pm, attempting to collect on the debt.
- On top of that text message, the defendant has contacted the plaintiff “numerous times via email during the inconvenient period” outlined by the plaintiff. These communications constituted a disruption for the plaintiff, according to the complaint.
- The defendant’s actions led the plaintiff to instruct his attorney to send a letter to the defendant, thus expending financial resources because he had to spend time and money to call his attorney in the form of costing him money on his cell phone plan. This conferred standing for the plaintiff to file this lawsuit in federal court, according to the complaint.
- The letter sent by the attorney instructed the defendant to forward any future communications to the attorney’s office, and asked the defendant not to contact the plaintiff via text, email, phone call, letter, or any other type of media. The letter also requested the defendant not contact the plaintiff’s place of employment, friends, or family members via any communication channel.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 16922 and 1692d of the FDCPA, as well as Section 1006.6(b)(1) of Regulation F.
