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 has removed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit to federal court in New York after it was accused of sending an undated Model Validation Notice while also using two different itemization dates in the itemization table.
The background: The plaintiff received an MVN from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid debt owed to a local bank. The MVN was undated — as designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when it promulgated Regulation F.
- At the top of the itemization table, it said, “As of November 10, 2023, our information shows:”
- Later in the table, the plaintiff is informed that “As of October 17, 2023, you owed: $285.67” and that “Between October 17, 2023 and today:” he was charged $0.00 in interest and fees and was credited or paid $0.00 toward the debt.
- Not including a date was misleading and deceptive, the plaintiff claims, and caused him to be misled about the status and amount of the debt because there was no date to let him know what “today” and “now” was.
- The date, according of the lawsuit, was a material term that was required for the plaintiff to understand the true nature of the obligation as well as the true amount of the debt.
- The back of the notice included the following disclosure: Please note that your Total Debt may not reflect any outstanding unpaid charges that may become due such as taxes, fees, interest, or fines. These charges remain your responsibility …
- Referencing taxes and fines planted the seed in the plaintiff was going to be penalized by taxing authorities or that he had committed a crime.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692g(a), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else in Bronx County, New York, who received an initial notice or letter from the defendant which included the alleged conduct and practices referenced in the complaint.
