Financial Recovery Services Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Collection Notice Misrepresentations

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Financial Recovery Services Inc. finds itself as the defendant in a proposed class action centered on statements the agency supposedly included in a collection notice mailed to a Wisconsin consumer.

According to the complaint, Financial Recovery Services in September 2018 mailed to the plaintiff a notice pertaining to an obligation owed to T.D. Bank that stated on its reverse side, in part:

“Federal Law prohibits certain methods of debt collection, and requires that we treat you fairly. You can stop us from contacting you by writing a letter to us that tells us to stop contact or that you refuse to pay the debt. Sending such a letter does not make the debt go away if you owe it. Once we receive your letter, we may not contact you again, except to let you know that there won’t be any more contact or that we intend to take a specific action.”

The lawsuit focuses in particular on the language from the defendant indicating “we may not contact you again, except to let you know that there won’t be any more contact or that we intend to take a specific action.” Arguing that such language is false, deceptive, and misleading to a consumer such as the plaintiff, the case says the inclusion of such a statement in a collection notice leaves out that a debt collector may still contact a consumer with regard to action intended to be taken by the creditor. More granularly, the case further claims the defendant’s notice unlawfully failed to disclose that a consumer, even after requesting communications cease, may be contacted by a debt collector to inform the individual that a specific remedy may be invoked in connection with the collection of a debt. 

“The failure to disclose that the debt collector may contact the consumer to notify her that the debt collector or creditor may invoke a remedy even if the debt collector does not currently intend to invoke that remedy with respect to the debt in question is a material misrepresentation,” the case reads.