12.  The Defendant’s letter is deceptive and misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e  and 1692e(10) as it falsely implies that the Defendant has actual knowledge about  Yehoshua C. Minsky’s financial conditions and what intentions he has or does not have  regarding the alleged debt.   13.  The said statement: “WE BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO BORROW THE  MONEY TO PAY OFF THE ABOVE ACCOUNT” is an unaccountable claim, not only  regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to borrow, but also about his wish or intention to do so.   14.  Defendant continues to state that it wishes to “ALLOW YOU MORE TIME TO GET  YOUR FINANCES IN ORDER,” which is a further baseless and presumptuous  statement, as it implies that the Defendant has actual knowledge of the Plaintiff’s  personal circumstances.    15.  The said statement that “AT THE END OF THE THREE MONTHS THE  ARRANGEMENT WILL BE REVIEWED…,” is a vague statement, as it does not  explain precisely what the Defendant is going to further review.   16.  More importantly, by stating that “HOPEFULLY YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PAY THE  REMAINING BALANCE IN FULL,” the Defendant opts out from identifying what  precisely will occur in the event that the Plaintiff is unable to do so.   -4-   17.  Defendant further states that its “ARRANGEMENT” could be accepted by writing or  calling the Defendant and “THAT YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS MENTIONED  ABOVE,” when the “terms” had been deliberately obscured or excluded from the  Defendant’s letter.   18.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides:   A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.  Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following  conduct is a violation of this section:   (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not  intended to be taken.  (10) the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or  attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.   19.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f provides:   A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or  attempt to collect any debt.   20.  Said language can be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings, one of  which is false.1     21.  The letter concludes with a statement encouraging the Plaintiff to contact the Defendant  and indicate that he agrees to “THE TERMS MENTIONED,” and ending with the words  “IT'S THAT EASY!!!” when no clear terms have been provided which a consumer  would be able to easily understand.   22.  Defendant, as a matter of pattern and practice, mails letters, or causes the mailing of  letters, to debtors using language substantially similar or materially identical to that  1 Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 1989). (Because the collection notice was reasonably susceptible to an  inaccurate reading, it was deceptive within the meaning of the Act.), Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1319 (2d Cir. 1993). (Collection  notices are deceptive if they are open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.), Russell v. Equifax A.R.S.,  74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996). (A collection notice is deceptive when it can be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings,  one of which is inaccurate. The fact that the notice's terminology was vague or uncertain will not prevent it from being held deceptive under §  1692e(10) of the Act.)  -5-  utilized by Defendant in mailing the above-cited letter to the Plaintiff.   23.  The letters the Defendant mails, or causes to be mailed, are produced by Defendant's  concerted efforts and integrated or shared technologies including computer programs,  mailing houses, and electronic databases.   24.  The said letter is a standardized form letter.   25.  Defendant's February 5, 2015 letter is in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(10) and  1692f for deceptive and misleading misrepresentations and for using unfair and  unconscionable means to collect on an alleged debt.  26.  Plaintiff re-states, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, paragraphs one (1)  through twenty five (25) as if set forth fully in this cause of action.   27.  This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of a class.   28.  The class consists of all persons whom Defendant's records reflect resided in the State of  New York and who were sent a collection letter in substantially the same form letter as  the letter sent to the Plaintiff on or about February 5, 2015; and (a) the collection letter  was sent to a consumer seeking payment of a personal debt purportedly owed to  Barclays Bank Delaware; and (b) the collection letter was not returned by the postal  service as undelivered; (c) and the Plaintiff asserts that the letter contained violations of  15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692f for deceptive and misleading  misrepresentations and for using unfair and unconscionable means to collect on an  alleged debt.  -6-   29.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action is appropriate and  preferable in this case because:  A. Based on the fact that a form collection letter is at the heart of this litigation,  the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  B. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and these questions  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The  principal question presented by this claim is whether the Defendant violated  the FDCPA.  C. The only individual issue is the identification of the consumers who received  such collection letters (i.e. the class members), a matter capable of ministerial  determination from the records of Defendant.  D. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of those of the class members. All are  based on the same facts and legal theories.  E. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members’  interests. The Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in bringing class  actions and collection-abuse claims. The Plaintiff's interests are consistent  with those of the members of the class.    30.  A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class members’  claims. Congress specifically envisions class actions as a principal means of enforcing  the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k). The members of the class are generally  unsophisticated individuals, whose rights will not be vindicated in the absence of a class  action. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the classes would  create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications resulting in the establishment of  -7-  inconsistent or varying standards for the parties and would not be in the interest of  judicial economy.   31.  If the facts are discovered to be appropriate, the Plaintiff will seek to certify a class  pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   32.  Collection attempts, such as those made by the Defendant are to be evaluated by the  objective standard of the hypothetical “least sophisticated consumer.”  Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act   33.  The Defendant's actions as set forth above in the within complaint violates the Fair Debt  Collection Practices Act.   BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO BORROW THE MONEY  TO PAY OFF THE ABOVE ACCOUNT, WE ARE EXTENDING TO  YOU ANOTHER OPTION.  Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself  and  the members of a class, as against the Defendant.  