Two named plaintiffs allege in a proposed class action against NCB Management Services, Inc. that the company mailed them collection notices that were out of step with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Two named plaintiffs allege in a proposed class action against NCB Management Services, Inc. that the company mailed them collection notices that were out of step with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Per the first plaintiff, the lawsuit says the Wisconsin man received a collection notice (Exhibit A) from the defendant in August 2017 over a supposed debt of $610.22. The previous month, however, the man reportedly received a billing statement (Exhibit B) over his account with World’s Foremost Bank showing a “New Balance” of $562.17 and a “Minimum Payment Due” of $171. Exhibit B informed the man payment was due to the bank by August 2, 2017, the suit says.
The discrepancy between the stated amount in the plaintiff’s July notice and August collection letter falsely indicated the man’s supposed debt had been accelerated, the lawsuit argues.
“By listing only the total balance of [the plaintiff’s] account prior to the acceleration of his alleged debt without listing the amount currently due, Exhibit A is false deceptive, and misleading as to the amount of the debt currently due to the creditor,” according to the complaint.
Further, the defendant reportedly pointed out in Exhibit A that the amount owed by the plaintiff may be greater on the day he remits payment due to interest, late charges or other fees that could vary from day to day. This representation would be considered false, deceptive and misleading under the FDCPA had the plaintiff’s account actually been accelerated, according to the lawsuit, as the man’s original creditor had no intention of collecting post-charge-off interest on his account.
The final Exhibit A item at which the lawsuit picks is the instruction in the notice with regard to canceling electronic payments—namely, that the defendant “may also require you to put your request in writing and get it to us within 14 days after your call.” Though the letter states a consumer may cancel any electronic payment up to three business days prior to the date a payment is scheduled to be submitted, the suit says, the notice supposedly fails to explain what happens to the funds scheduled to be paid during the time period between a cancelation made over the phone and any subsequent written cancelation requests. From the complaint:
Specifically, Exhibit A fails to explain whether such funds would be held in escrow or simply not transferred, and if not transferred, whether NCB reserves the right to transfer such funds should the consumer fail to submit the required written cancelation request.
Given the ambiguity of the representations contained in Exhibit A, the unsophisticated consumer may incorrectly assume that the funds subject to a scheduled electronic payment may be subject to any of the above mentioned [sic] possibilities.”
The second named plaintiff’s allegations revolve around two collection notices—Exhibits C and D—in which the defendant also allegedly provided ambiguous details with regard to canceling electronic payments. Echoing the first plaintiff’s claims, the case says the notices failed to explain what would happen to funds scheduled to be paid electronically, namely whether NCB would hold the money in escrow or simply not transfer the funds should the plaintiff fail to submit a written cancelation request.