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.
A collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit because it disclosed in a collection letter that it was reporting a debt to all three major credit reporting agencies, but the debt did not appear on credit reports from two of the three agencies.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01753 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant this past July which included the following disclosure: “[w]ithin 30 days of your final payment successfully posting, we will request that the three major credit reporting agencies delete our tradeline related to your account from your credit bureau report.”
Three weeks after receiving the letter, the plaintiff checked her credit report from one of the three major credit reporting agencies and the debt was not included on her report. Then, the plaintiff obtained a copy of her credit report from the same agency for June 2, 2023 — a month before the collection letter was sent — and the debt was not on her report. The plaintiff then checked two more dates — January 2023 and June 2, 2023 — and the debt was not on her report there, either.
The plaintiff then checked her report with a different credit reporting agency and the debt was not listed on her report.
The plaintiff subsequently sent the defendant a letter to inquire why the debt was not appearing on her credit reports. The age of the account was such that it was not legally permitted to be on the plaintiff’s credit report, according to the complaint.
The plaintiff then filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 16982e, and 1692f of the FDCPA because she paid for the price of a stamp to find out why the defendant informed her that it would have her tradeline deleted when it wasn’t even showing up on her credit report in the first place.