Archive for 'debt collection agency'

Capital Recovery Systems: From Our Case Files

Friday, June 1st, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Capital Recovery Systems. Our client alleges that the debt collector who contacted him didn’t tell our client the name of the debt collection agency or that he was calling in an attempt to collect a debt. Moreover, our client says that, when he asked for a letter indicating the name of the debt collection agency, the Capital Recovery Systems debt collector refused to do so, and instead asked for our client’s email address. Our client did not want to share his email address, and asked that the letter be mailed to him. The debt collector refused.

The lawsuit charges that Capital Recovery Systems violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior, by not disclosing the identity of the debt collection agency, by not saying that phone call was an attempt to collect a debt, and by not sending a validation notice within five days of contacting our client.

Regional Adjustment Bureau: From Our Case Files

Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, against Regional Adjustment Bureau. Our client alleges that the debt collection agency contacted his father and lied by saying that there was a pending lawsuit against our client. His father said that his number wasn’t our client’s number, but that he would give a message to our client. Three days later, our client alleges that Regional Adjustment Bureau called his father again, telling him that our client had to call the debt collector that day. When he called the debt collector, the agency allegedly threatened to file a lawsuit within 24 hours if he didn’t immediately pay the debt. The debt collector also allegedly threatened to place a lien on our client’s property.

The complaint also alleges that, two days later, Regional Adjustment Bureau called our client’s father and sister in an attempt to collect the debt. In addition, it charges that our client asked for the debt collection agency’s address and that Regional Adjustment Bureau refused to provide it, and that it didn’t inform our client of his rights under the law.

The lawsuit charges that Regional Adjustment Bureau violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by contacting third parties for purposes other than location information, by talking to third parties about a debt, by engaging in harassing behavior, by using deception, by misrepresenting the legal status of the debt, by threatening to place a lien on our client’s property, by threatening to take legal action without intending to do so, and by failing to send a letter within five days of initial contact with our client.

Amerassist A/R Solutions: From Our Case Files

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates last week filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, against Amerassist A/R Solutions. Our client alleges that the debt collection agency called the cell phone provided by his employer, even though he told AR that the calls were inconvenient and against his employer’s policy. He alleges that AR called up to twice a day, and once called five times within ten minutes, causing our client to worry that he would lose his job. Even after he informed AR that he had an attorney and gave the debt collector his attorney’s contact information, our client alleges that AR continued to call him.

The lawsuit charges that Amerassist A/R Solutions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by contacting him at a place and time known to be inconvenient, by calling him at work knowing that his employer prohibited such calls, by harassing him, by failing to disclose the identity of the debt collection agency, and by failing to inform him that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt. It also charges that the debt collection agency violated California state law by engaging in these behaviors.

From Our Case Files: ProCollect

Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates last week filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, against ProCollect. Our client alleges that the debt collection agency called up to two times a week in an attempt to collect a debt that was past the statute of limitations, and didn’t tell our client that the debt was time-barred. He alleges that, when he asked for verification of the debt, the ProCollect debt collector demanded immediate payment and said, “And you are going to pay it!” Moreover, he says that ProCollect didn’t follow up the call with a written notice informing her of her right to dispute the debt.

The lawsuit charges that ProCollect violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by harassing him, by annoying him with repeated phone calls, by misrepresenting the legal status of the debt, by failing to tell him that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt, and by failing to send the required validation notice. It also charges that the debt collection agency violated Texas state law by repeatedly calling with the intent to annoy or abuse our client, as well as by intruding on his right to privacy.

From Our Case Files: Regional Adjustment Bureau

Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates this week filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, against Regional Adjustment Bureau. Our client alleges that the debt collection agency called and left a voicemail at her work phone number, after which she called Regional Adjustment Bureau and told them that she wasn’t allowed to get calls at work, and then gave them her cell phone number. She alleges that, a week later, the debt collector called her at work again. Moreover, she says that Regional Adjustment Bureau didn’t follow up the call with a written notice informing her of her right to dispute the debt.

The lawsuit charges that Regional Adjustment Bureau violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by contacting her at a time and place known to be inconvenient, by calling her at work knowing that such calls weren’t allowed, by harassing her, and by failing to send the required written notice.

Cavalry Portfolio Services: From Our Case Files

Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates this week filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, against Cavalry Portfolio Services. Our client alleges that the debt collection agency called her three or four times daily. Because our client has multiple sclerosis, she was terribly inconvenienced by the calls. She also alleges that the debt collector from Cavalry Portfolio Services didn’t identify himself as a debt collector. Further, she says that the debt collection agency stated that they “would get their money one way or another,” and didn’t send her written notification within five days of their first contact informing her of her right to dispute the debt.

The lawsuit charges that Cavalry Portfolio Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior, using abusive language, calling excessively, failing to disclose the identity of the debt collection agency, failing to disclose that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt, and failing to send a validation notice. It also charges that the debt collection agency violated New Jersey state law by intruding upon her right to privacy.

Sentry Credit: From Our Case Files

Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates this week filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, against Sentry Credit. Our client alleges that he set up a payment plan with Sentry Credit, and made payments according to that plan. When his wife lost her job, he called the debt collection agency to let them know it would be about six weeks until he could make another payment. He alleges that Sentry Credit threatened to sue him, scaring him into making two payments. The debt collection agency allegedly threatened him with a lawsuit four times, so our client scheduled an automatic debt from his bank account on a certain day. He says, however, that Sentry Credit made the withdrawal two weeks before the agreed-upon date, causing him to pay an overdraft fee.

The lawsuit charges that Sentry Credit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior, by threatening to take legal action without intending to do so, by employing deceptive means to collect a debt, and by debiting his bank account without the required three-day notice of intent to deposit.

IQ Data International: From Our Case Files

Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:49 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of a client, Lemberg & Associates this week filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, against IQ Data International. Our client alleges that, although the debt in question belonged to a relative, IQ Data International called her at her home number, which was automatically forwarded to her cell phone. She uses her cell phone for business, and asked the debt collection agency to quit calling. She alleges that IQ Data International continued to call and accused her of lying about her identity. She also alleges that, after getting an attorney and informing the debt collector that she has an attorney, IQ Data International continued to call.

The lawsuit charges that IQ Data International violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by contacting our client at a place and time known to be inconvenient, by using profane and abusive language, by calling with the intent to harass, and by contacting her even after she had an attorney. It also charges that the debt collection agency violated Arizona state law by intruding upon her right to privacy.

NCO Debt Collection Agency Settles with 19 State Attorneys General

Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 6:19 pm  
Leave your comment

According to a press release issued by NCO Financial Systems, the debt collection agency has arrived at a settlement with 19 state Attorneys General, agreeing to pay a total of $575,000, as well as to set up a $50,000 consumer restitution fund in each state. The states affected are Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

According to Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, consumers who are eligible to receive restitution either:

* Paid NCO for a debt they did not owe;
* Overpaid interest on a debt that was not supported by the underlying agreement between the consumer and the original debt holder or that was otherwise permitted by law; or
* Paid more on a debt than the amount NCO agreed to settle the account.

The restitution funds are available through February 6, 2015. If you think you are impacted by the settlement, you should visit your state Attorney General’s website.

According to Vermont Attorney General William Sorrel’s press release, NCO’s settlement included provisions that the company must:

* comply with applicable state and federal law;
* for debts reported to credit reporting agencies, notify the agencies within 30 calendar days of any consumer dispute;
* provide notice to consumers about their debt collection rights under federal and state law; monitor compliance, including through training employees and independent contractors and creating policies and procedures for handling customer complaints; and
* submit compliance reports to involved states every 6 months for 18 months.

Several news reports have noted that NCO must, within 30 days, notify credit reporting agencies of verbal disputes (as opposed to only written disputes) from consumers.

Commercial Recovery Systems: How Low Can You Go?

Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 4:39 pm  
Comments (11)

A Texas woman says she has suffered immeasurably at the hands of Commercial Recovery Systems, a third-party debt collection agency. In Flynn v. Commercial Recovery Systems (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division), it is alleged that the debt collection agency went beyond the pale in attempting to collect a debt. The complaint alleges that the debt collector called Flynn’s cell phone up to six times a day, and called her octogenarian parents at 7:00 a.m. and told them that there was a warrant for Flynn’s arrest. Moreover, the debt collector allegedly threatened to come to Flynn’s house, and to arrive with a law enforcement agent. Added to the mix are allegations that Commercial Recovery Systems allegedly failed to send Flynn the mandated 5-day notification letter, nor informed her of her right to dispute the debt. The suit, filed by Lemberg & Associates on behalf of Ms. Flynn, cites numerous violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as the Texas Debt Collection Act.

 Page 1 of 5  1  2  3  4  5 »