DEBT COLLECTION IS SECOND MOST COMPLAINED ABOUT INDUSTRY IN U.S. SAYS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

On March 8, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its annual report listing the top consumer complaints during the past year. You can obtain a copy of the report by viewing the following link: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/topcomplaints.shtm

Not surprisingly, the collection industry came in second place with a staggering 144,159 consumer complaints during 2010. This equates to 11% of all complaints filed by consumers nationwide. In comparison, “Internet Services” came in third place with just over 65,000 complaints (or 5% of the nationwide complaints in 2010).

According to a pro debt collection site www.insidearm.com, the most common complaints concerned:

  1. frequent or excessive phone calls;
  2. false representation of the amount or status of the alleged debt;
  3. failure to send written notice of the alleged debt; and
  4. false threats of lawsuits.

If you are experiencing any of these issues with a collector please be sure to contact the FTC, BBB or your state Attorney General immediately.

Philips & Cohen Associates

In late October 2010, Krohn & Moss received a call from a client asking for help because he believed that Philips & Cohen Associates had violated his FDCPA rights. Our client told us that Philips & Cohen Associates would call him at 6:19 a.m. Once our client would pick up the phone, Philips & Cohen Associates would immediately hang up and call back a minute later. This type of unlawful debt collection practices happened several times. Also, Philips & Cohen Associates would send collection letters for a debt that he did not owe. In fact, the alleged debt was owed by his deceased mother-in-law. Upon receipt of the letters, our client sent the letters back, marking “decease with not assets” to Philips & Cohen Associates. Furthermore, our client sent a cease and desist letter stating that he did not owe the debt and to stop harassing him. Regretfully that did not stop Philips & Cohen Associates from violating the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and harassing our client.

Krohn & Moss sent a letter of representation and ordered Philips & Cohen Associates to cease further communications with our client and that any communications should go through us. Krohn & Moss alleged that Philips & Cohen Associates violated several sections of the FDCPA and demanded them to compensate our client for their unlawful debt collection practices. In less than sixty (60) days from the date Krohn & Moss sent out its notice of representation of our client, Philips & Cohen Associates agreed to compensate our client $795.00 and pay his attorney’s fees and costs. Philips & Cohen Associates also agreed to close their account and cease any further contact with our client. To this date, our client has not received any further telephone calls or letters from Philips & Cohen Associates.

DEBT COLLECTOR CREATED A FAKE COURTROOM

The state Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, has gone to court to stop an Erie County debt collection company, Unicredit America, Inc., from using misleading, confusing and coercive tactics to extract payments from debtors, including summoning them to hearings held in a fake courtroom and threatening them with arrest by Sheriff's deputies.

The fake courtroom allegedly contained furniture and decorations similar to those used in actual court offices, including a raised “bench” area where a judge would be seated; two tables and chairs in front of the “bench” for attorneys and defendants; a simulated witness stand; seating for spectators; and legal books on bookshelves. During some proceedings, an individual dressed in black was seated where observers would expect to see a judge.

Corbett said, “This is an unconscionable attempt to use fake court proceedings to deceive, mislead or frighten consumers into making payments or surrendering valuables to Unicredit without following lawful procedures for debt collection. Consumers also allegedly received dubious 'hearing notices' and letters – often hand-delivered by individuals who appear to be Sheriff Deputies – which implied they would be taken into custody by the Sheriff if they failed to appear at the phony court for 'hearings' or 'depositions'.”
Corbett said Unicredit allegedly used civil subpoenas to summon consumers to an office in Erie, which included an area referred to by Unicredit employees as “the courtroom.”

Corbett is seeking restitution for all consumers who have been harmed by Unicredit's alleged unfair trade practices, along with civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation or up to $3,000 for each violation involving a victim age 60 or older. Accompanying the lawsuit is a petition for special and preliminary injunction that asks the court to freeze all Unicredit assets and prohibit the company from engaging in any debt collection.

A hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 13 before Erie County Judge Michael E. Dunlavey.

When Robots Take You to Court

After successfully defending several baseless 12(b)(6) motions (Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) and inevitably encountering the same irrelevant argument, namely, that Krohn & Moss files hundreds of lawsuits every year…therefore _insert name ‘s__ case has no merit…, I found it fascinating to learn that the collection industry far outperforms Consumer advocates both in size and scope of their operations. (In case you were wondering, they never win on that argument). Anyways, my eyes were recently widened by a July 12, 2010, NY Times article titled Automated Debt-Collection Lawsuits Engulf Courts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/business/13collection.html?_r=1

The article discusses the new age of collections, namely, automated collection lawsuit filing systems! That’s right; robots will soon be calling you to collect. If you don’t pay, they will automatically generate a summons and complaint; file it and whalaa….. You have a judgment entered against you… (Assuming you don’t show up to court and defend). Wait a minute – they already are doing that!

In the NY Times article, the author stated “Few have been as prolific as Cohen & Slamowitz, a Woodbury, N.Y., firm that has specialized in debt collection for nearly two decades. The firm has been filing roughly 80,000 lawsuits a year” (emphasis added). “With just 14 lawyers on staff, that works out to more than 5,700 cases per lawyer”. Now, I have certainly heard my fair share of collection call messages from our clients where a robot/automated voice leaves a message, but I honestly didn’t know that they had robots filing the lawsuits as well! Ok, so they are not robots, it is a computer system – and I probably shouldn’t continue to disparage robots in this fashion. In my own personal opinion, a robot has much more personality than a hard core debt collector. With that said, I am actually looking forward to the next unexpected motion when a debt collection company makes that same old argument that Krohn & Moss is “clogging the courts valuable resources by filing so many suits”. I will definitely be attaching the article described above as an exhibit outlining the real cause of the courts state of burden.