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.
There are times where I choose a complaint to write about because the details are interesting (man bites dog). Then, there are times where I choose a complaint to write about because it spotlights a trend that I am noticing when reviewing complaints. This is one of those situations. I have been noticing a fair number of complaints where the plaintiffs are alleging that they have notified a collection operation that they are being represented by an attorney, yet the operations are allegedly still attempting to communicate directly with the consumers.
The background: Bak in 2021, an attorney representing the plaintiff sent two communications to the original creditor, notifying the creditor that the plaintiff was being represented and that all subsequent communications should be sent to the attorney. The letters demanded that any direct communications with the plaintiff be ceased.
- The creditor “acknowledged” the letters of representation, according to the complaint, but does not provide details what form that acknowledgement took.
- The debt was sold and transferred to another company — a debt buyer, which, according to the complaint, should have been notified when the account was transferred that the plaintiff was being represented.
- Nonetheless, the debt buyer sent a letter to the plaintiff in an effort to collect on the unpaid debt.
- The attorney sent the debt buyer a notification that the plaintiff was being represented and demanded all future direct communications with the plaintiff be ceased.
- Those additional letters were also acknowledged by the debt buyer, according to the complaint.
- The debt was then placed with a collection operation, who should have also received notification that the plaintiff was being represented by an attorney, according to the complaint.
- The attorney sent a fifth letter of representation to the debt buyer, informing it that the plaintiff was being represented by an attorney.
- That letter was also acknowledged by the debt buyer, according to the complaint.
- The debt was then placed with a different collection operation, who sent the plaintiff a letter directly.
- The plaintiff’s attorney sent another notification to the defendants, informing them that the plaintiff should not be communicated with directly.
- The new collection operation then allegedly sent a letter and two text messages to the plaintiff, attempting to collect on the account.
- The defendants’ actions — furnishing information about the debt to the credit reporting agencies — caused the plaintiff’s credit score to drop and violated the attorney-client relationship, according to the complaint. The plaintiff also suffered severe emotional distress, which led to headaches and anxiety.
The claims: The complaint alleges the defendants violated Section 1692c(b) because the plaintiff never consented to the debt buyer’s communications with the collection operations.
- The complaint also accuses the defendants of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA by attempting to collect and furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies on a debt the plaintiff did not owe.
- The complaint also accuses the defendants of violating Sections 1692c(a)(2) and 1692c(c) of the FDCPA for attempting to communicate with the plaintiff after being notified that the plaintiff was being represented by an attorney.
