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.
In what seems like a situation where a lot of communications are likely being sent to the wrong address, a collection operation is facing claims of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as being accused of violating Regulation F by furnishing information about a debt to the credit reporting agencies before notifying the plaintiff about the debt after the plaintiff was the victim of bad timing by signing a lease on an apartment a month before the COVID-19 lockdown went into place back in 2020.
The background: The plaintiff signed a lease in January 2020, but tried to cancel it a month before he moved in. The owner of the building refused to cancel the lease, but offered to waive some fees if the plaintiff found a replacement tenant.
- In September 2020, while the lease was still in effect, the landlord assigned the full amount of the debt — $12,475, to a collection operation. The plaintiff disputed the debt with the collector and followed up twice and submitted a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- Five years later, the defendant — a different collection operation — began furnishing information about the debt to the credit reporting agencies.
- The complaint alleges that the defendant has not attempted to make any communication with the defendant, either by mail or by telephone. The address furnished by the defendant in its report to the credit bureaus listed an address that the plaintiff has never lived at — the apartment that he leased by never moved into.
- Upon discovering the tradeline in his credit report, the plaintiff filed disputed with all three credit bureaus, and each reported that the debt was valid.
- The plaintiff also filed a complaint with the CFPB, to which the defendant replied that it would mail proof of the debt to the plaintiff, which has yet to occur, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff also disputed the debt with the defendant, seeking validation of the debt. The defendant has not responded to the validation request, according to the complaint.
- The defendant’s actions have caused the plaintiff’s credit score to drop by 140 points and led to issues with the plaintiff’s attempts to secure new rental housing.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA by not providing a written notice about the debt after an initial communication, which was reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies. Even if the reporting wasn’t considered a communication, the defendant was required to attempt to communicate with the plaintiff prior to reporting the debt to the bureaus, which is required under Regulation F.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA for not providing verification of the debt after it was requested by the plaintiff, and Sections 1692e and 1692f for reporting information about the debt.
