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 collector is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit in Pennsylvania for allegedly misleading a borrower into believing she had a deadline to pay a debt and for attempting to collect two other debts where the plaintiff was the victim of identity theft, after the plaintiff traveled to Texas — where the alleged thefts took place — to try and straighten things out.
The Background: The plaintiff claims to have been the victim of identity theft after her identity was used to apply for and rent housing in Dallas, where the plaintiff has never lived.
- The plaintiff has made reports to the Pennsylvania State Police and the Federal Trade Commission, has submitted fraud alerts to the credit reporting agencies, and traveled to Dallas to report the theft to the Dallas Police Department.
- In December 2023, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, seeking to collect $290.95 that was owed to an townhome rental community in Dallas. The plaintiff submitted her police reports and affidavits to the defendant, according to the complaint, and disputed the debt.
- The defendant sent another letter in February. On February 14, the plaintiff was told during a phone call with the defendant hat she must pay the alleged and disputed debt immediately and was threatened with an escalation of the collection efforts if she did not pay. She was allegedly told that this was the final day she could submit payment and resolve the issue before it was escalated.
- The plaintiff paid the debt.
- In March, the plaintiff received two more collection letters from the defendant, seeking to recover $14,560.11 and $7,887.31 that were owed to different townhome rental companies in Dallas.
- The plaintiff disputed both of the debts with the defendant.
- The defendant has yet to mail any verification of the debts to the plaintiff, according to the complaint.
- The defendant reported information about one of the debts to the credit reporting agencies and did not indicate the debt was disputed.
The Claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
- The actions that the defendant took to collect on the first debt allegedly violated Sections 1692e(5) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by demanding immediate payment of the debt and threatening to escalate their collection efforts.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA by not verifying the debts when they were disputed.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(8) by not communicating with the credit reporting agencies that the debt was being disputed by the plaintiff.
