Collector Accused of Violating Reg F, FDCPA by Furnishing Info about Plaintiff’s Father on Plaintiff’s Credit Report

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 defendant is being accused of violating the debt parking provisions of Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly furnished information about an unpaid debt to the credit reporting agencies that was owed by the father of the plaintiff and not the plaintiff himself, even after the defendant was allegedly notified of the issue.

A copy of the complaint, filed in District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-04507 or by clicking here.

After receiving telephone calls and “other communications” from the defendant, the plaintiff initiated a call to the defendant in July, according to the complaint. The plaintiff informed the representative of the defendant that he had been receiving calls about an unpaid debt owed to Sprint, but that he had never had a Sprint account and it appeared as though the calls were intended for his father. The representative allegedly asked for the plaintiff’s Social Security number, and when provided it, checked and confirmed that the defendant had no account on record for the plaintiff.

A month later, the plaintiff checked his credit report and found that the debt owed to Sprint was being reported on his credit and that the account was being reported as delinquent. The plaintiff checked his credit report again in November and the tradeline in question was still appearing on his credit report.

The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692e and 1692e(8) of the FDCPA and Section 1006.6(e) of Regulation F, as well as state law in Georgia. The plaintiff noted in the complaint that Regulation F requires an individual be notified — either by speaking with the individual on the phone or sending a letter and waiting at least 14 days to make sure the letter is not returned as undeliverable — before furnishing information about an unpaid debt. The complaint does not make reference to the content of the “other communications” that the plaintiff received and whether there was any notification in them.

Check Also

Judge Grants MJOP in FDCPA Case Over Time-Barred Claim

A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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