Defendant Accused of Violating 7-in-7 Provisions of Reg F, Saying Debt Must be Paid in Full

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 law firm is being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly told an individual that a payment plan was not available and that he must pay the debt in full and for not stopping communications after the individual allegedly demanded that the defendant stop communicating via phone calls and text messages while also allegedly informing the plaintiff that the only way the calls would stop was if the debt was paid.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Orlando, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-01931 or by clicking here.

The plaintiff defaulted on a debt that was placed with the defendant for collection. The plaintiff allegedly informed the defendant that he was out of work and inquired about setting up a payment plan. The defendant allegedly said that a payment plan was not an option and that the debt must be paid in full. The defendant also allegedly informed the plaintiff that he had no right to demand for the communications to stop, that the only way they would stop was if the debt was paid, and threatened to file a lawsuit to collect on the unpaid debt, which would “result in victory” for the defendant’s client, according to the complaint.

The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d and 1692d(5) of the FDCPA, and Sections 1006.14(b) and 1006.14(h) of Regulation F for violating the 7-in-7 restrictions and for communicating or attempting to communicate after an individual has requested that communications in a particular channel be stopped.

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.