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.
Voicemails. That old chestnut. They can be a problem for companies in the accounts receivable management industry. A collection operation is facing a lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and South Carolina state law after it was accused of leaving voicemail messages for the plaintiff’s mother and father that disclosed the existence of a debt, for failing to identify itself as a debt collector, and for attempting to confirm a settlement agreement that the plaintiff allegedly had no knowledge of.
The background: The defendant allegedly contacted the plaintiff’s mother and father and left separate voicemails for each on more than one occasion. In one voicemail, the representative uses the plaintiff’s name like the message is being left for her specifically. In the other, the voicemail refers to an “urgent and time-sensitive message,” which the plaintiff claims was neither urgent nor time-sensitive. The purpose of the message was to falsely cause the plaintiff to belief a more “perilous” technique would be used to collect on the account if the plaintiff did not “immediately” agree to a payment plan.
- The defendant never had any intention of filing a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff asked the defendant to stop calling her and the defendant allegedly said that it would not stop calling her or her family members, according to the complaint.
- The defendant has also failed to inform the plaintiff of her right to dispute the validity of the debt.
- It also sent an email to the plaintiff that said, “This letter is to confirm our agreement to settle the above referenced account. If the payment(s) is returned for any reason the settlement will be null and void” even though no settlement had been reached. The only reason to send this message was for the defendant to trick the plaintiff into calling it so it could attempt to collect the balance from her, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(a)(3), 1692c(a)(b), 1692d(6), 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), and 1692g of the FDCPA as well as provisions of the South Carolina Consumer Protection Code.
