Class-Action Accuses Defendant of Not Including SOL Disclosure in Letter

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 class-action lawsuit has been filed against a collector for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it failed to include a disclosure that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit to collect on the debt had expired and filed a lawsuit to collect on the debt a week later.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York can be accessed using case number 22-cv-10127 or by clicking here.

The letter in question was sent on September 15, 2022 and appears to be a validation letter because it starts, “This letter is in response to your request for debt validation regarding the above captioned manner.” The letter indicates that the account was charged off by the original creditor on September 27, 2019 and that the last payment was received on March 21, 2019. The letter does disclose that the communication was being sent by a debt collector and was an attempt to collect a debt.

The complaint does not disclose when the statute of limitations had expired, just alleges that the letter “should have advised the Plaintiff that he could not be sued and that the debt was unenforceable.” The complaint also alleges that the defendant filed a lawsuit the following week in New York state court to attempt to collect on the debt.

The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA. The suit seeks to include anyone who received a letter attempting to collect on a debt by the defendant on behalf of the original creditor in which the statute of limitations disclosure was not made.

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 *