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 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 in New Jersey federal court alleging a defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it sent a letter offering options to settle a debt for less than the full amount owed and that once the final payment was received, it would request the tradeline in question be deleted from the plaintiff’s credit report because it would consider the account to be resolved in full.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-06894 or by clicking here.

The plaintiff received a letter that said at the top, “Resolve Your Debt For Less Than the Full Balance” that was owed, which was $502.22. Provided the plaintiff made two payments of $112.99 each, the debt would be considered resolved, according to the letter. At the bottom of the letter, it stated, “We will request the credit bureaus delete the [defendant’s] tradeline approximately 30 days after the final payment has been posted that resolves the account as paid in full.”

The complaint alleges that the letter could mean that a discounted amount is being paid and the defendant would request the deletion of the tradeline upon completion of the discounted payments, or that the plaintiff could make discounted payments or could pay the outstanding debt in full and then benefit from deletion of the tradeline.

The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA and seeks to include anyone else who received similar letters as members of the class.

Check Also

Judge Grants MTD for Lack of Standing in FDCPA Case Over Letter Vendor, Dispute Status

Making sure to explain in specific detail why the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, a …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

X