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.
This is one of those, “I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this is a big deal or not” situations, but a lawsuit has been filed against a collection operation for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in which the suit says it is being filed as a class action, but which does not include any reference to the class. It feels like either that part was left out of the complaint for some reason, or it was a copy-and-paste from a previously filed suit that was a class action and this one isn’t. The suit accuses the collector of seeking to collect on a non-existent debt.
The background: The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant last November.
- The notice indicated that the itemization date was May 6, 2025 and that the balance as of that date was $4,624.94. Between May 6 and the date the letter was sent, $1,196.14 in payments or credits were made, leaving a balance of $3,428.80.
- The problem, according to the complaint? The plaintiff was enrolled in a state-monitored program designed to assist with utility costs, and her balance on the May 2025 statement she received, which was not included as an exhibit, was $0.00, according to the complaint.
- The “sudden” collection attempt to recover a debt that had already been paid by the state and the “large discrepancy” between the balance shown in the notice and the statement caused the plaintiff “significant confusion and emotional distress,” and forced her to spend “considerable” time reviewing her past statements and enrollment records to verify her obligations had been met, according to the complaint.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amount of the debt, attempting to collect a non-existent debt, employing “collection tactics that created surprise and emotional distress”, and failing to communicate the accurate amount of the debt, according to the complaint.
