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 collection operation is facing a class-action Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit over a claim that was very popular years ago but hasn’t been seen much recently, while also being accused of making “conflicting” and “ambiguous” disclosures related to the age of the debt and what could happen if a payment was made.
The background: The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant back in November. The letter informs the plaintiff that there was a charge-off balance on the account of $26,730, that the date of default was October 9, 2010, and that $4,570.17 in interest had accrued, making the total balance $31,300.17.
- The letter also informed that plaintiff that if he made a payment, “the creditor’s right to sue you to make you pay the entire debt may START AGAIN.”
- In two other places on the letter, there was also a disclosure informing the plaintiff that due to the age of the debt, neither the the current owner of the debt nor the collector attempting to recover the balance would sue to recover the balance and the debt was not going to be reported to any credit reporting agency.
- The “conflicting” disclosures left the plaintiff feeling “anxious and confused,” according to the complaint, because one part of the letter “threatens the rebirth of a lawsuit if payment is made, while another part promises that no lawsuit will occur regardless of the debt’s age.”
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by not stating if interest on the debt was still accruing and referencing the ability for a lawsuit to occur.
- The suit seeks to include anyone who received a communication from the defendant in which an itemization of the debt showed that interest was being charged but did not “explicitly state if the interest was still accruing or had been waived,” according to the complaint.
