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.
What is the normal course of action for an individual who believes his or her identity has been stolen? How active would you be in trying to fix potential issues, especially if they started showing up on your credit report? Furthermore, when it comes to determining whether an individual has standing to sue, does the potential inability of being able to rent an apartment at some date in the future — due to the fact that there is a collection item on your credit report related to not paying rent already — constitute a concrete injury? Finally, is filing one dispute all that an individual can do — before he or she has to file a lawsuit — to try and fix a problem on his or her credit report? Those are the questions that sprang to mind as I read this complaint, in which a collector is being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it attempted to collect on a debt that the plaintiff claims is a result of his identity being stolen.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01145 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff’s wallet, which included his driver’s license and a document containing his Social Security number, were in his car when it was stolen last year. A year later, the plaintiff learned that his identity was used to rent an apartment. The plaintiff learned this when a collection item appeared on his credit report. The plaintiff disputed the debt, according to the complaint, but the defendant continued to attempt to collect the debt from the plaintiff after it had been disputed. The defendant also continued to report the debt to the credit reporting agency.
Having the collection item from an apartment building on his credit report could keep the plaintiff from finding “safe, affordable, and decent housing,” according to the complaint. And, even though he alerted the defendant that it was trying to collect money he did not owe, they ignored their responsibilities, leaving the plaintiff with “no possible alternative to resolve this issue” other than to file suit.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA as well as state law in Texas.