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 collection operation that focuses on collecting apartment-related debts is facing a lawsuit in federal court in Arizona for allegedly continuing to call a consumer even after the individual informed the company that the debt had already been paid.
The background: The defendant was attempting to collect on a past-due balance tied to an apartment rental.
- The lawsuit claims that after the account was placed with the defendant for collection, the plaintiff began receiving calls on his cellphone seeking payment of the balance. The complaint states that the defendant used several different phone numbers when attempting to reach the plaintiff.
- Last Fall, the plaintiff noticed that the debt was being reported on his credit report by the defendant. As a result, he contacted the apartment complex and ultimately made payments directly to the creditor to satisfy the balance in full, according to the complaint.
- Despite that, the plaintiff alleges that collection calls from the defendant continued.
- The plaintiff allegedly informed the defendant during one conversation that he was in the process of paying the debt and that further calls were unnecessary. The complaint states that the plaintiff repeated this message during additional calls and specifically asked the company to stop calling.
- The lawsuit alleges that the defendant nevertheless continued placing collection calls to the plaintiff’s cellphone in connection with the same debt.
- The complaint also alleges that the calls sometimes occurred within seven days of prior communications with the plaintiff regarding the debt.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692d of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint also references Regulation F.
- In addition, the plaintiff claims the defendant violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt that had already been paid.
