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.
One of the concerns that was raised in the build-up to the enactment of Regulation F had to do with how medical debts were going to be handled. In some circumstances, there were multiple providers and multiple debts and addressing how best to communicate that information, especially with the Model Validation Notice, could be tricky. Well, a consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit alleging a collection agency has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because he received four MVNs on the same day that all dealt with debts owed to the same creditor — a healthcare provider — and all had different amounts. The four letters all included the same account number but included three different reference numbers at the top of the notices. The plaintiff is complaining that the confusion about whether he had to be any or all of these debts rendered him confused and unable to take any action.
The background: The four notices had three different itemization dates — October 30, 2023, October 31, 2023, and November 1, 2023. The four notices had three different amounts owing — $686, $45, and two said that the balance on the account was $38. All four letters were dated July 9.
- The “blatant” contradictions in the notices made it “impossible” for the plaintiff to “:”reasonably assess” the legitimacy of the claims from the defendant that money was owed, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g(a) of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else living in New Jersey who received multiple “initial collection letters” from the defendant that had the same date and account number but where the balances on each letter were different.
