Debt Relief Power of Attorney Doc at Center of FDCPA Suit

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.

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 agency is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit because it allegedly refused to discuss the particulars of an account with the plaintiff due to the fact that the plaintiff had previously executed a power of attorney with the debt relief firm she was working at.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-01227.

Background: A pair of debts were placed with the defendant for collection. The plaintiff had previously worked at a debt relief firm and one of the debts was enrolled with the firm. The plaintiff allegedly cancelled her relationship with the firm in February 2021. The plaintiff was subsequently informed that her wages were being garnished to satisfy one of the unpaid debts. The plaintiff contacted the defendant, but the defendant said it could not speak with the plaintiff because the plaintiff had executed a power of attorney, giving the debt relief firm control over the account. The plaintiff informed the defendant that she was no longer working with the debt relief firm and that it should have been notified of that development.

Nonetheless, the defendant still allegedly refused to speak with the plaintiff, which resulted in more of her wages being garnished.

The defendant did say it could speak with the plaintiff about the other debt, and when the plaintiff said she was not in a position to repay it, the representative allegedly informed the plaintiff that her wages would be garnished and that a lien would be placed on her home.

Allegations: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA as well as sections of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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 *