Fair Debt Collections Practice Act
Complaint
William
Country: United States
Lawsuit claims debt collectors Prenovost, Normandin, Bergh & Dawe of Santa Ana, California, hired by LBS Financial, falsely represented that a lawsuit had been filed against him.
Consumer William Williams claims in a lawsuit filed May 22, 2012 that in connection with collection of an alleged debt in default, Prenovost, itself and on behalf of LBS, sent Williams initial written communication dated December 6, 2011, containing the notices required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) et seq and that the correspondence contains a subject line stating "LBS FINANCIAL Credit Union vs. Williams," giving the appearance that a lawsuit had been filed against Williams and asserts that Williams owes an alleged debt with "the principal balance of $17,260.17." The letter further threatened: "Additionally, late charges, attorney's fees, court costs and service of process fees may be included in the Judgment." However, neither Prenovost nor LBS had filed a lawsuit against Mr. Williams.
On February 2, 2012 correspondence from Prenovost threatened: Be advised that our client has every intent to file legal action against your client if the above-referenced amount is not paid within 7 days of the date of this letter.
The allegations by Mr. Williams against Prenovost and LBS include:
* Using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning Mr. Williams.
* Falsely representing a principal balance and failing to meaningfully convey the amount of the debt.
* Overshadowing the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) during the thirty-day dispute period by implying that a lawsuit had been filed against Mr. Williams.
* Threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
US District Court Sherman Division Case No. 4:12-cv-00316
Consumer William Williams claims in a lawsuit filed May 22, 2012 that in connection with collection of an alleged debt in default, Prenovost, itself and on behalf of LBS, sent Williams initial written communication dated December 6, 2011, containing the notices required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) et seq and that the correspondence contains a subject line stating "LBS FINANCIAL Credit Union vs. Williams," giving the appearance that a lawsuit had been filed against Williams and asserts that Williams owes an alleged debt with "the principal balance of $17,260.17." The letter further threatened: "Additionally, late charges, attorney's fees, court costs and service of process fees may be included in the Judgment." However, neither Prenovost nor LBS had filed a lawsuit against Mr. Williams.
On February 2, 2012 correspondence from Prenovost threatened: Be advised that our client has every intent to file legal action against your client if the above-referenced amount is not paid within 7 days of the date of this letter.
The allegations by Mr. Williams against Prenovost and LBS include:
* Using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning Mr. Williams.
* Falsely representing a principal balance and failing to meaningfully convey the amount of the debt.
* Overshadowing the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) during the thirty-day dispute period by implying that a lawsuit had been filed against Mr. Williams.
* Threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
US District Court Sherman Division Case No. 4:12-cv-00316
Post a new comment