Complaint Alleges Confusion Between Who Owned Debt and To Whom Debt was Owed

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.

The issues related to making sure a consumer recognizes the debt being referenced in a collection letter (or notice) while also making sure to identify the current creditor to whom the debt is owed is not an easy needle to thread. Leave out a name and the consumer has less of a chance to figure things out. Include too many names and the consumer can get confused. It’s the latter situation in this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F lawsuit, which alleges a notice sent via email was too confusing.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00045 or by clicking here.

The complaint alleges the plaintiff received an email from the defendant. The email makes two references to the debt being owed to “Reflex/Celtic Bank.” The email goes on to notify the plaintiff that the debt is now owed by DNF Associates. Allegedly owing the debt to one party and having it owned by another confused the plaintiff, who ultimately did not make any moves to repay the debt or learn more about it.

The plaintiff also alleged that she did not recognize the amount claimed to be owed, which furthered her suspicions that the debt was not hers. The defendant failed to provide any of the itemization information required by Regulation F, according to the complaint, which led the plaintiff to contact an attorney and file the lawsuit.

The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692g(a)(1), and 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

Check Also

CFPB Won’t Pursue Enforcement Action with Opportun Over Legal Collection Practices

For the executives of Opportun Inc., it probably feels like Christmas in March. The company …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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