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 claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act over the contents of messages it left for a consumer, and for failing to provide a validation letter after the initial communication was made.
The background: Starting in March, the plaintiff began receiving calls from the defendant. During the course of a 30-day period, the defendant allegedly left three voicemails for the plaintiff.
- The contents of the messages, according to transcripts included in the complaint, make it appear as though the messages were not complete. For example, the first message stated, “Terrace, Miami, Florida dot please return the call to our office at [phone number] as soon as possible. This is an attempt to collect a debt, and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”
- A month later, another voicemail was left, this time saying, “you that your overdue balance remains outstanding. Should you require any assistance or wish to? Discuss setting up a\ repayment plan, please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone number]. It is crucial for us to document a response before the reporting date this.”
- A day later, the following message was left: “Standing balance associated with your account. Please return our call as soon as possible at [phone number]. We are ready to discuss options that can benefit you and help bring this account to a positive resolution. This communication from a debt collector. Your prompt response is appreciated. Thank you, [plaintiff’s name]. We are”
- The plaintiff also claims not to have received a validation notice from the defendant, providing additional details about the debt.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d(6), 1692e(5), and 1692e(11) by not meaningfully disclosing the caller’s identity in the messages that were left, threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or is not intended to be taken, and failing to disclose that the defendant was attempting to collect on a debt.
- The background section of the suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA by not providing the validation notice, but that claim was not listed in the portion of the suit detailing the counts against the defendant.
