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 debt buying organization and a collection operation are facing claims they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in Texas over attempts to collect a debt that included “threats” to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff — even though it has never done so — and leaving a voicemail for the plaintiff’s mother, which run counter to what the defendants say on their websites about their collection practices.
The background: Back in December, the plaintiff received a phone call from one of the defendants. During the call, a representative of the defendant allegedly threatened to sue the plaintiff and seize her automobile to recover the amount that was due, according to the complaint. The plaintiff hung up on the representative.
- The defendant immediately called back and left a voicemail in which the message stated, “hanging up on me will not make this matter go away … we are, you know, willing to help you out with this madder here in our office before it does proceed forward.” The message included a phone number that the plaintiff could use to contact the defendant and asked her to reference a case number.
- The use of the phrases “matter here in our office’ and “before it does proceed forward” and “case number” were all meant to “imply and scare” the plaintiff into believing she was going to be sued, according to the complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendant has ever sued a consumer in the state of Texas or seized an automobile to recover the balance of a debt.
- That same say, the defendant called and left a voicemail for the plaintiff’s mother. In the message, the defendant said that there is an “active complaint that has been filed against you” and “due to the lack of correspondence on your behalf, I have been instructed to proceed with serving you at your home or your place of employment within the next 48 hours.”
- The complaint includes excerpts and statements from the defendants’ websites, discussing their oversight of third-party debt collectors and their commitments to compliance.
The claims: The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 1692c(b), 1692d(2), 1692d(6), 1692e(2), 1692e(3), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(8),1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692e(13), and 1692g(a) of the FDCPA.
- The complaint alleges all of the defendants violated provisions of the Texas Finance Code.
- The complaint seeks damages of $1,000 for the FDCPA violations, damages of not less than $100 for each violation of the Texas Finance Code, as well as “exemplary” damages under the common law of Texas.
