Collector Facing Class-Action Suit for Failing to Provide Validation Information in Initial Notice

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 today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.

A class-action complaint has been filed against a collection agency in federal court in South Carolina, accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F because it allegedly sent an initial collection notice that did not contain any of the required validation information.

A copy of the complaint in the case of Adams v. Hillcrest Davidson & Associates can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff allegedly received an initial collection notice from the defendant this past April. The notice appeared to be a standard collection letter, informing the plaintiff about the debt and offering a 10% discount on the amount that was due if the debt was paid within 30 days from the date of the letter.

The notice was not a Model Validation Notice that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created for Regulation F nor did the notice contain any of the required disclosures or additional details, such as prompts to allow the plaintiff to dispute the debt, and an itemization date.

In filing the class-action complaint, the plaintiff accused the collector of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA and Sections 1006.34(c)(2), 1006(c)(3), and 1006.34(c)(4) of Regulation F. The suit seeks to include anyone else who received such a letter from the defendant as an initial collection notice.

Check Also

Second Circuit Rules CFPB Funding Structure is Constitutional in Affirming CID Against Collection Law Firm

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a ruling that upheld a …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *