Collector Facing Class Action for Allegedly Shortening Validation Period

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.

After seeing a number of lawsuits filed because a date was not included in the Model Validation Notice, which led plaintiffs to claim that it was impossible to know whether the end of the validation period was correct, there is a new type of Regulation F and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit being filed, alleging that the end of the validation period is not being calculated accurately. A collector is facing a class-action lawsuit in Florida for allegedly not allowing for the full 30 day validation period required under Reg F and the FDCPA. The defendant has removed the case to federal court after it was originally filed in Florida state court.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida can be accessed using the case number 22-cv-22967.

The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid credit card debt. The Notice is dated June 8. The itemization table says that as of April 22, 2022 the plaintiff owed $549.84. The dispute portion of the Notice says that the plaintiff has until July 13 to dispute all or part of the debt.

According to the complaint, taking into account Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays, the validation period should have ended on July 15, not July 13 as referenced in the Notice. Unlawfully shortening the validation period is a violation of Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA and Sections 1006.34(b)(5) and 1006.34(c)(3) of Regulation F, according to the claims made by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff seeks to include everyone who received a similar notice from the defendant where the validation period was allegedly unlawfully shortened.

Check Also

Judge Grants MTD in FDCPA Case Over Collection of BK Debt

A Magistrate Court judge in Puerto Rico has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

X