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 all the concern about digital communication and the potential risks, sometimes people forget that every communication, including simple letters and notices, are just as risky. A collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for sending a letter to the plaintiff attempting to collect on an unpaid insurance debt because it should have known that the plaintiff was the victim of identity theft and fraud from “sophisticated con-artists in a widespread fraudulent scheme.”
The background: Last January, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, seeking to recover a balance of $4,500 because the plaintiff allegedly did not carry liability coverage “on the date of loss.” The letter indicated that the plaintiff had not “shown any initiative in regards to resolving this matter voluntarily,” according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff’s explanation is that he was the victim of identity theft and those responsible used his information to finance the. purchase of multiple vehicles in the plaintiff’s name.
- The plaintiff only became aware of the transaction after noticing the accounts on his credit report.
- The plaintiff claimed to have notified the “vehicle companies” of the alleged fraudulent activity prior to collection activity being initiated on the account.
- By stating that the plaintiff was the owner of the debt, the defendant is accused of violating the FDCPA.
- The complaint does not mention whether the plaintiff disputed the debt or attempted to contact the defendant prior to initiating this lawsuit, nearly 12 months to the day after the letter was sent.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by using false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect when it indicated that the plaintiff was the owner of the debt. The suit also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692f of the FDCPA by acting unfairly and unconscionably when it stated the plaintiff was the owner of the debt.
- Based on the fraudulent activity already on the account, the plaintiff believed this collection attempt to be fraudulent and did not want to send any of his information or otherwise speak to the defendant, according to the complaint.