Skip to content Skip to navigation

Convergent Outsourcing New Jersey FDCPA Unfair Debt Collection Law Class Action Lawsuit

image of convergent building

This class action has been brought against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and Jefferson Capital LLC because of Convergent’s alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against New Jersey consumers.

Included in the class are all New Jersey consumers to whom Convergent sent debt collection letters between June 7, 2016 and June 7, 2017, which listed Jefferson Capital LLC as the creditor, and which contained at least one of the alleged violations of the FDCPA.

The FDCPA was passed to keep debt collectors from using abusive, deceptive, or unfair practices when trying to collect debts. The complaint alleges that Convergent violated this act in several ways.

The plaintiff, Jose Medina, incurred a consumer debt with TD Bank. This debt was eventually transferred to Jefferson Capital, which assigned it to Convergent for collection. On or about June 7, 2016, Convergent sent Medina a letter attempting to collect on that debt. It offered to “settle” the debt for 50% of the amount due.

The word “settle” implied the threat of a lawsuit. However, the statute of limitations on the debt had already expired and Medina could no longer be sued for it—unless he made a partial payment, which might revive the ability to sue.

The letter did not contain language expressly noting that the debt was time-barred. The statement it did contain, the complaint alleges, was unclear and hidden on the back of the letter, did not mention the statute of limitations, and referenced only Convergent’s rights to sue and not Jefferson’s.

Under the FDCPA, Medina had a right to information on the statute of limitations, and to the information that making a payment on the debt could reset the statute of limitations.

The FDCPA is designed to give consumers enough information on debt collections for them to be able to make intelligent choices. The complaint claims that Convergent’s letter deprived Medina of the information needed in this case to choose intelligently. It accuses Convergent of violating the act in a number of ways:

  • By using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt
  • By making false representations of the character, amount, or legal status of the debt
  • By falsely representing services rendered or compensation which may be received by the debt collector
  • By threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken
  • By using unfair or unconscionable means to attempt to collect the debt
  • By attempting to collect an amount that was not permitted by law
Article Type: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook