Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Facing Multi-Count FDCPA Lawsuit

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations has been filed against Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. that takes issue with three collection letters the defendant sent to a Wisconsin consumer.

The first letter allegedly informed the plaintiff that she could call the defendant’s telephone number if she had “any questions.” The suit argues that this statement is “false, deceptive, and misleading” because it encourages the plaintiff to dispute the alleged debt over the phone when only a written dispute would trigger her FDCPA verification rights. From the complaint:

“To trigger verification rights, the debtor must provide the debt collector with written notification that there is a dispute … Upon receiving a written dispute from the consumer within the 30-day debt validation period, the FDCPA requires the debt collector to contact the creditor and obtain verification of the debt before conducting any further collection efforts.”

Absent written notification, the suit argues, the debt collector would not be bound by FDCPA requirements and the plaintiff would be tricked out of exercising her full rights.

The second collection letter allegedly specified an “amount due” of $990.42 but also noted that the plaintiff could settle her account for the same amount, leaving the plaintiff unsure as to whether $990.42 was the full balance due or a partial payment.

“On the face of Exhibit B, it is unclear whether a $990.42 payment would pay the account in full or simply settle the account, and it is unclear how RMCB, or the creditor, would report the account to credit reporting agencies in the event the consumer tendered a $990.42 payment,” the suit reads.

The third collection letter, according to the complaint, demanded payment by a due date of January 16, 2018 – two weeks after the notice was received – but also contained a statement informing the plaintiff that her account had been reported to “one or more” credit bureaus. The deadline, the suit argues, falsely implies that the plaintiff could avoid negative credit reporting by paying off her debt by the date provided when her credit had already been damaged.