Class-Action Accuses Collector of Violating FDCPA, Regulation F for Not Using MVN

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.

A class-action complaint has been filed against a collection agency, accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the provisions of Regulation F because it did not use a Model Validation Notice and allegedly used false and deceptive means to attempt to collect on the debt because it opted for a traditional collection notice.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-00595 or by clicking here.

The plaintiff received a notice from the defendant. Rather than use the Model Validation Notice, the defendant opted for a more traditional form of collection letter, stating the name of the current creditor, the name of the original creditor, the account number, the balance due, and informing the plaintiff that “The above account has been placed with our office for collection. The balance due is $918.70.” The letter then includes the mini-Miranda notice and the validation disclosure notifying the individual that she had 30 days to dispute the debt.

But, the complaint alleges, Regulation F sets forth that the defendant must include an itemization date, the consumer response section, and the validation information that is required under the regulation.

The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA, as well as Sections 1006.34(c)(2), 1006(c)(3), and 1006.34(c)(4) of Regulation F.

Check Also

Settlement Offer, Tradeline Deletion Mention in Letter Leads to Class Action Against Collector

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

X