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 [email protected] 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.
This is one of those types of cases where I don’t even know where to start. A consumer has filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against a collector, accusing it of sending confusing letters, trying to conceal its identity, and overshadowing the plaintiff’s right to demand validation of the debt, but the defendant used a Model Validation Notice and the plaintiff chose to investigate the debt by doing some things I don’t think he needed to do.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois can be accessed by clicking here. The two letters referenced in the complaint can be accessed by clicking here and here.
The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant, which was dated for March 20, 2023. The notice, which included the name of the defendant, an address, and a phone number at the top, informed the plaintiff he had until April 29 to dispute all or part of the debt, provided the phone number for the creditor to discuss payment options, and included a tear-off portion (underneath a statement that read, “Please return this portion with your payment (Make sure address shows through window).” The tear-off portion included a dispute checkbox, the address for the defendant and an address for the creditor, under the statement, “Mail this form to:”
Ten days later the plaintiff received another letter from the defendant. The letter, which included the defendant’s name, address, and phone number at the top, informed the plaintiff that the debt sill remained unpaid and instructed the plaintiff to send correspondence, other than payment, to a P.O. Box in Delaware. At the bottom of the letter was a section that said “Professional Collectors,” (not the name of the defendant), “Collection Agency” and “Full Service” along with a number of cities.
The plaintiff looked up a phone number for Professional Collectors, called it, and an agent informed the plaintiff that it did not have a record for him in their system.
The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA because the first letter — the Model Validation Notice — allegedly did not include the defendant’s address and confused the plaintiff because he did not know how or where to send his dispute.