PA Consumer Alleges National Recovery Agency’s Debt Dispute Investigations Don’t Pass Muster

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Suspected violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act are at the center of a Pennsylvania consumer’s proposed class action against National Recovery Agency. The plaintiff’s allegations stem from eight trade lines placed by National Recovery Agency in 2014 on her Trans Union credit report. In April 2015, the complaint states, all accounts placed by the defendant on the plaintiff’s credit report were removed due to their original creditor, Lancaster General Health, undergoing a change to its computer system and needing to pull back a total of 63,000 accounts. In December 2015, Lancaster reportedly returned the 63,000 accounts to the defendant to continue collection activities.

The case states that after the plaintiff’s first dispute with Trans Union in 2016, the defendant deleted all but two accounts on the woman’s credit report. In response to a letter sent by the plaintiff disputing these two accounts, the defendant sent the woman a collection notice supposedly providing proof of the debts. In July 2016, the case continues, the plaintiff again disputed these same two accounts, which the woman said could no longer be on her credit report due to their age.

All told, the plaintiff argues National Recovery Agency failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and verify with Trans Union the dates of the plaintiff’s two previously reported accounts. This charge is backed up in the complaint with alleged statements put forth during the deposition of one of the defendant’s dispute department employees that sheds light on National Recovery Agency’s investigatory procedures:

Specifically, [the defendant’s] employee provided testimony that whenever [National Recovery Agency] received a first consumer dispute about its credit reporting, [the defendant’s] employees are instructed to send out proof of the debt and otherwise verify the information as accurate. This does not constitute any investigation, let alone a reasonable investigation. Thereafter, in the event there are subsequent disputes concerning the same consumer, [the defendant’s] employees simply check whether the proof of the debt was previously sent. If it was, [then] the debt is verified to the credit bureaus; if it was not sent, [then] proof of the debt is sent.”