Bass & Associates hit with lawsuit over allegedly illegal debt collection appeals


Bass & Associates, PC has been the subject of a proposed class action lawsuit regarding its alleged practice of placing robocalls for debt collection on consumers’ cell phones without their consent.

The plaintiff in the case claims the defendant made dozens of ‘harassing’ collection calls on his cell phone about a debt he insists he doesn’t owe, and even after asking the company to stop calling.

The 13-page lawsuit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the case, calls to the plaintiff began following a vacuum cleaner demonstration he had scheduled with The Kirby Company in late 2019, after which he decided not to purchase the vacuum cleaner. Nevertheless, the plaintiff was then “surprised” to receive a call from United Consumer Financial Services in which he was told he had an unpaid debt related to his purchase of a Kirby Company vacuum cleaner, the suit states.

The lawsuit claims the plaintiff began receiving debt collection calls in 2021 from Bass & Associates, which allegedly acquired the rights to the alleged debt after it defaulted. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff immediately asked to be removed from the defendant’s appeal list because he did not owe the debt in question.

The case alleges, however, that Bass & Associates continued to make “numerous harassing calls” to the plaintiff’s cell phone despite his request for the calls to cease. Each time he answered the calls, the plaintiff was asked to press “1” to speak to a representative or press a different number if he was not the person the defendant was trying to contact, relays the trial. If he did not answer the calls, the defendant would leave a pre-recorded message of about 30 seconds asking the plaintiff to call back, according to the complaint.

The plaintiff asserts that he never provided Bass & Associates with his cell phone number or consented to contacting him through automated technology. According to the case, the defendant does not have a system in place to determine whether he has a consumer’s consent before making robocalls on his cellphone, a requirement of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. .

Additionally, the “abusive, harassing and oppressive” calls violated multiple aspects of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, according to the lawsuit. The case claims that the debt collection calls “severely disrupted the plaintiff’s daily life and general well-being”.

Plaintiff seeks to represent any person in the United States on whose cellphone Defendant made or caused to be made a call using an artificial or pre-recorded voice without the person’s consent at any time during the past four years and up to ‘on the date of the class certification.

Get class action news delivered to your inbox – sign up for the newsletter here.

Source link


About Author

Comments are closed.