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.
For debt collectors, a lot of times you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. This seems to be one of those times …
A plaintiff has filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against a collector, accusing it of communicating in an unauthorized manner with a third party and disclosing information about the debt without the plaintiff’s permission. It appears as though the third party is an attorney who may or may not have been representing the plaintiff in another matter, possibly involving the same defendant.
A copy of the complaint, which was removed to the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by the defendant, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01705 or by clicking here.
The defendant mailed a collection letter to an unauthorized third party last May, according to the complaint. Neither the defendant nor the original creditor were informed by the plaintiff that the third party had been “hired or otherwise retained” to “represent” the plaintiff regarding the debt.
“Merely being represented by an attorney for one debt or legal matter does not mean the consumer provided consent and/or authorization to speak to or communicate with said attorney on any other debt or legal matter,” [emphasis added] according to the complaint.
Reading between the lines, the plaintiff had retained the third party to represent him in another matter. The defendant concluded that the attorney was still representing the plaintiff and rather than run the risk of sending the letter to the plaintiff and being sued for communicating with someone who was represented by an attorney, sent the letter to the lawyer. The cynic in me wants to say this feels like a trap where the defendant was going to get sued for whomever it sent that letter to.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA.