Consumer Files Reg F Lawsuit Over Missing Itemization Date in Letter

A plaintiff has filed a lawsuit in Texas against a collection agency, alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F because it sent a collection letter that failed to include an itemization date while also allegedly including contradictory information as to whether interest on the underlying debt was actually accruing.

A copy of the complaint in the case of Willich v. Midwest Fidelity Services can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant in February 2022. The letter was dated, but allegedly did not include an itemization date, as required under Regulation F, which went into effect on November 30, 2021. “Had Defendant been cognizant of the regulations and used one of the required dates for its itemization, it would have determined the date of the itemization, which would have then accrued prior to Defendant’s sending of the collection letter,” according to the complaint. “Instead, Defendant’s collection letter seemingly impermissibly lumps the debt into a single balance on a completely random date, thus illustrating its failure to comply with the FDCPA and Regulation F.”

The complaint also accuses the defendant of violation Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA because the letter included an itemization table, which had a line for “Interest” that was $0.00. But the letter also included a disclosure that read, “As of the date of this letter your balance is $1,170.00. Because
of interest that may vary from day to day, the balance owing on the day you pay may be different.”

The plaintiff became confused, according to the complaint, because if interest may vary from day to day, why was there $0.00 in interest that had been assessed on the account. “Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions, including but not limited to expending time addressing and dealing with Defendant’s confusing and misleading conduct, being deprived the ability to intelligently address the subject debt given Defendant’s violations of law, and a violation of her federally protected interests to be provided clear and accurate information regarding the debt serving as the basis of Defendant’s collection efforts,” according to the complaint.

Check Also

FCC Banishes Telecom Company After Not Addressing Robocall Rules

The Federal Communications Commission yesterday announced it had excommunicated a telecom company for failing to …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.