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.
Timing, as they say, is everything. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing a letter offering settlement options on a debt to a consumer’s home just two days after it allegedly received written notice from the consumer that his home was an inconvenient place to be contacted.
The background: The plaintiff sent the defendant a letter that was received on February 17, 2026, according to the complaint.
- In the letter, the plaintiff instructed the defendant that his home was an inconvenient place for communication and asked the defendant not to contact him there.
- The plaintiff also stated that he disputed any debts the defendant claimed he owed, but he explicitly noted that the letter was not a request for validation or verification and asked the defendant not to send him any information.
- Two days later, on February 19, 2026, the defendant allegedly mailed a letter to the plaintiff’s home in an effort to collect on the account.
- That letter offered three ways to resolve the balance: a lump-sum payment reflecting roughly 15% in savings, a nine-month payment plan reflecting roughly 10% in savings, and an 18-month plan covering the full balance.
- The letter stated that the offers expired on a set date and that the defendant was not obligated to renew them, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff originally filed the suit in state court, and the defendant removed the case to an Alabama federal court.
The claims: The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692c, 1692c(a), and 1692c(a)(1) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff at a location it had allegedly been told was inconvenient, along with Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1), as well as related provisions of Regulation F.
- The complaint does not connect each cited violation to a specific act, instead resting the case on the timing and destination of the defendant’s letter.
