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.
When trying to work out a situation with both a creditor and a collector, things can get confusing quickly. A creditor and debt collection operation are facing claims of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving claims of how both interacted and communicated with the plaintiff related to months of back-and-forth calls and emails over a debt that was incurred when a toilet backed up in the plaintiff’s residence. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a series of confusing, misleading, and threatening communications while attempting to collect a disputed balance tied to plumbing and remediation work.
The background: The dispute began in June 2025 after the plaintiff’s bathroom toilet overflowed, prompting a late-night call to a plumbing service for emergency assistance. A technician arrived the following morning and performed work described as clearing a blockage and removing roots from the pipes. The plaintiff paid $608 for the initial service.
- Shortly afterward, a remediation team arrived at the home and advised that sewage contamination required drying and remediation services. The plaintiff agreed to a limited scope of work involving cleaning, antimicrobial treatment, and dehumidification for one to two days. The estimated cost ranged from $1,500 to $3,500, and the plaintiff paid a $500 deposit.
- Technicians visited the home over several days to monitor drying equipment that had been installed in the bathroom. According to the complaint, each visit lasted only a few minutes. When the equipment created excessive heat and noise, the plaintiff requested that it be removed.
- A few days later, the plumbing problem returned, requiring the plaintiff to hire another company to clear the pipes again.
- Shortly after that, the original service provider sent an invoice seeking more than $5,200 for the remediation work. The plaintiff disputed the charges, arguing that the invoice exceeded the scope of work and did not account for the $500 deposit already paid.
- According to the complaint, the company did not respond to the dispute for several months.
- Months later, a collection agency allegedly began contacting the plaintiff regarding the disputed balance.
- The lawsuit claims that several voicemails referenced the debt and the original creditor but failed to clearly identify that the calls were from a debt collector or disclose the company’s identity. The plaintiff also alleges that the collection agency failed to provide the validation notice required under the FDCPA.
- The complaint further alleges that the collector threatened potential legal and even criminal consequences related to what it described as a “fraudulent check,” despite the plaintiff’s claims that no such check had been issued.
- At one point, the plaintiff says he agreed to settle the account for $5,000 after being told he was “in big trouble.” The payment was allegedly processed through the collection agency, which the plaintiff says he did not realize was involved until after the transaction occurred.
- According to the lawsuit, the balance later continued to change, with new fees and finance charges being added even as the plaintiff repeatedly requested documentation and validation of the debt.
- The plaintiff claims that the defendants continued attempting to collect despite those validation requests and that the communications caused significant stress, anxiety, and confusion.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendants of violating Sections 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(4), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 169f(1), 1692g, 1692g(a), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA and the corresponding sections of the RFDCPA.
