Dispute Process?
Complaint
William Murphy
Country: United States
They got us too, it seems. Situation: Recieved mail from Afni that my wife owed over $300 for account that was opened 12/2003 and closed 3/2004. She's called Cingular who verified that there was an account in her name (and SSN) including our home address. In addition, there was another address of her grandmother in another state.
There is a possibilty that this debt is legitimate, but certainly not ours. When my wife called Cingular, they said they couldn't talk to her about the account because it had been turned over to collections. So my first question is whether we should be allowed any access to the Cingular info. Seems like it will be difficult to proove we DON'T owe without it...
Next, and granted this came from the person at Afni my wife spoke to, if we dispute, we'll need to show how this couldn't have been us. Proving a negative is always hard. I'd like to make them proove that it WAS us.
I'm asking for quidance regarding next steps. My wife is going to call her grandmother to try and get more info. In the meantime I want to get this off my wife's credit report, and resolve this issue.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
There is a possibilty that this debt is legitimate, but certainly not ours. When my wife called Cingular, they said they couldn't talk to her about the account because it had been turned over to collections. So my first question is whether we should be allowed any access to the Cingular info. Seems like it will be difficult to proove we DON'T owe without it...
Next, and granted this came from the person at Afni my wife spoke to, if we dispute, we'll need to show how this couldn't have been us. Proving a negative is always hard. I'd like to make them proove that it WAS us.
I'm asking for quidance regarding next steps. My wife is going to call her grandmother to try and get more info. In the meantime I want to get this off my wife's credit report, and resolve this issue.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Comments
Or look it up on Pacer.
Note how the talk-off is used to attempt to overcome the consumer's suspicions on an alleged debt that does not make sense, "suggesting" a "reason" for it to be owed anyway, when AFNI, and this particular employee, has NOT verified the "debt" and has actually made no investigation of any sort to determine whether or not it is owed, or whether the generic "reason" they offer actually applies to this particular debt.
They are implying more certainty to the accuracy of their information on the debt than they actually have.
That is deceptive.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Collection-Agency-s/Afni-Inc/afni-inc-collection-scam-for-b9728.htm
"...
When I spoke to Brenda, Afni, Inc. she stated that Virginia is a "single billing" state and as such I needed to pay the bill. I explained in detail that the collection did not make any sense and that she needed to verify the facts prior to continuing to send me collection notices....
Upon, speaking with Verizon (800) 688-2880 they confirmed that the account for my past phone number (703) 318-7351 was in fact closed with no balance due.
..."
You have literally thousands of similar complaints, and these are typical of many in the year 2007.
Virtually all allege attempts to collect unowed "debts", for alleged phone numbers they never had, with alleged phone companies they never had an account with, at addresses they never lived at, for periods where they had other phone service.
Several attempts to get payment from people who were minors at the time the account was opened at some other unknown address. One report of an account already closed and acknowledged by Verizon to be fraudulent, yet you were attempting to collect on it anyway.
Note the reported attempt by an AFNI employee to prevent the consumer from sending a written dispute, trying to get them to go to their website instead.
Note the AFNI "minimum pay" talk-off by "Jerry Lopez", just like you.
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/fake-collection-notice-c6077.html
Keep in mind that you offer these talk-offs BECAUSE consumers do not believe the debt is valid. They are not calling to have some chat about the weather, or about general legal theory in debt collection.
They are calling to find out what this alleged debt is about, hence they are by definition calling to dispute. Federal law gives them the right to dispute, and your own letters are required to notify them of this, yet your verbal talk-offs provide "explanations" aimed at convincing them not to send a written dispute, which is what they would have to do to effectively dispute under FDCPA.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2 ... _sdt=2&as_vis=1
"...
Congress enacted the FDCPA in order to curtail abusive debt collection practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). To that end, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using any "false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." § 1692e. Section 1692e lists several types of proscribed conduct, including the two types Plaintiffs invoke in this case:
(2) The false representation of—
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;
(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.
§§ 1692e(2)(A), (10).
..."
Whether they are "deceptive" is generally weight by courts against a "least sophisticated consumer" standard. It doesn't matter that some attorney with legal experience in utility law might know that what you are saying may be false. What matters is whether your statements would deceive the least sophisticated consumer.
To be in violation, the statements must be "material", that is they must affect the consumer's decision to pay or ability to dispute.
"...
Statements are material if they influence a consumer's decision—to pay a debt in response to a dunning letter, for example, see Muha, 558 F.3d at 628—or if they would impair the consumer's ability to challenge the debt at issue.
..."
What is apparent from the various talk-offs reported by consumers is that they are not just some general comment, they are actually designed for the purpose of deflecting consumers who have called to dispute.
"They doubt the debt because they still have an account, if they are in Virginia, say it's a minimum pay state".
"They want to send a dispute letter, you say they have to dispute through your website".
"Consumer says X, you say Y".
Your various generic deceptive talk-offs, aimed at overcoming consumer doubts about unknown debts, are clearly "material". You would not even be using them if they were not effective for this purpose.
But we can expose another aspect of your operations from the fact that you have established this elaborate pattern of talk-offs reinforced by training, deceptive letters, and minimal "validation" responses.
1) You know that you are attempting to collect many of these accounts from people who will doubt their legitimacy.
2) Your talk-offs, "cannot investigate" letters, and validation responses are designed to overcome those doubts or create confusion in consumers trying to dispute.
3) You must know, therefore, that many of your collection attempts are in error, yet you are trying to divert disputes and get payment anyway.
It does not appear that people receiving your letters, or finding your black marks on their credit reports, consider the matter "silly".
"There's clearly a breakdown in the accuracy of the data these companies are operating off of,"
That's an understatement.
http://www.startribune.com/local/92589329.html?page=1&c=y
"A collection agency has been hounding Minnesotans, trying to collect old debts on behalf of Qwest.
By LORA PABST, Star Tribune
Last update: May 2, 2010 - 8:47 AM
...
On Friday, Afni, Inc., the Illinois collection agency that demanded $122 from Welk in March, said it has suspended its effort to collect an estimated 100,000 old Qwest debts in Minnesota, after Welk and others took their complaints to Attorney General Lori Swanson. It was the company's second run-in with Swanson in two years.
In 2008, Swanson sued Afni after consumers complained the company had harassed them and improperly reported debts to credit bureaus. Afni settled the case by agreeing to stop collection efforts once the company determined it had the wrong person.
Afni's recent efforts to collect on the Qwest debts have unleashed a "significant number" of new complaints, according to the attorney general's office. Swanson sent letters last month to Qwest and Afni asking that they stop collection efforts on the Minnesota accounts until the companies straighten out their records.
"There's clearly a breakdown in the accuracy of the data these companies are operating off of," said Ben Wogsland, spokesman for the attorney general's office. "These kind of collection practices are troubling. It's extremely frustrating to consumers who don't even owe the debt to get hounded."
Afni's compliance director Debra Ciskey said the company is researching at least 12 customer complaints. "Absolutely, we are complying" with Swanson's request, Ciskey said. She said she could not comment on Welk's case.
..."
See pages 171 and 172.
Note that Verizon and AFNI zoomed to the #1 and #2 slot in 2007, with AFNI standing out above all debt collectors for that year. The number of id theft complaints per month connected to AFNI in this sampling increased by 5.4 times, and connected to Verizon by 2.9 times, from 2006 to 2007, far more than any other company.
Based on the 2007 sampling of 3 months, your yearly FTC "id theft" complaints can be estimated to be around 1500 for 2006, 8500 for 2007, and 6000 for 2008. Verizon shows similar effects, which is expected since it was their old accounts you were collecting on during this period.
Your "id theft" talk-off created the appearance of a mini-crimewave, skewing FTC's complaint statistics.
http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publication ... bank_safety.pdf
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/consumer/afni.php
So for those of you who are being harassed by Afni (or any other CA) and you intend to report them to the cops, lawyers and States Attorney, or do nothing more than rant over the computer as you search for an end to your credit hell, I wish you the best of luck.
And for those of you who either work for a CA or have nothing better to do but criticize those venting about CAs, good luck to you too. I just hope you never have experiences that require you to look to sites like this for assistance.
FYI. Here are a couple of sites that I found useful. GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL!
http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/disputing ... llectors.html#2
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs27-debtcoll.htm
So for those of you who are being harassed by Afni (or any other CA) and you intend to report them to the cops, lawyers and States Attorney, or do nothing more than rant over the computer as you search for an end to your credit hell, I wish you the best of luck.
And for those of you who either work for a CA or have nothing better to do but criticize those venting about CAs, good luck to you too. I just hope you never have experiences that require you to look to sites like this for assistance.
FYI. Here are a couple of sites that I found useful. GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL!
http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/disputing ... llectors.html#2
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs27-debtcoll.htm
According to their website, they have 11 facilities in 5 states:
"Under their leadership, the company incorporated a comprehensive menu of customer care services and business quickly grew. By the end of the decade, they opened centers in Peoria, Illinois; Tucson, Arizona; Bowling Green, Kentucky; Opelika, Alabama and the Martin Luther King and Wylie Drive facilities in Bloomington. With the business expansion, the company name changed to “Afni, Inc.”
Later, Griffin and Greene incorporated insurance-specific services into their menu of service offerings and opened yet another facility in St. Charles, Missouri in 2002. Today, Afni employs over 4,000 nationwide, with 11 facilities located in 5 states."
And their history:
"Afni, Inc. got its start in the credit and collections industry, founded in 1936 by Louis V. "Red" Slavens in downtown Bloomington, Ill. In 1976, Earl Anderson purchased the company; in 1985 he was joined by new general manager Bruce Griffin, who soon began opening satellite offices around the country that reported to a central hub with the new name Anderson Financial Network, Inc. Ronald Greene joined in 1992; in 1995 Bruce and Ron purchased the company, relocating to its current headquarters at 404 Brock Drive in Bloomington.
The company began a period of immense growth, expanding from a traditional collection agency to providing customer interaction services. From 1997-1999, centers opened in southeast Tucson, Ariz.; Peoria, Ill.; and a second facility in Bloomington. Expansion continued from 2000-2002, with centers opening in Bowling Green, Ky.; Opelika, Ala.; northwest Tucson; a third facility in both Bloomington and Tucson; a St. Charles, Mo., office; and, most recently, a new facility in San Antonio, Texas. Also during this time, the company name changed to Afni, Inc.
Afni has experienced tremendous growth in its 70+ years, with expansion into new services and new industries. But one thing has remained constant: Our steadfast commitment to becoming partners in your business-and treating your customers as if they were our own."
If you're looking for their physical addresses (instead of a PO box):
http://www.afniupsourcing.com/about_us/locations.htm
I am intrigued that the letters I received tonight had return envelopes marked w/a PO box in CA...they do not list offices in CA. Makes one wonder...
And I found this little gem:
http://fdcpalaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/nj-woman ... lse-credit.html
Don't forget to file paperwork with the Attorney General's office in IL (since that is where they're corp is based)! Good Luck!!
In one study of FTC id theft complaints for 2007, AFNI actually reached the #2 company associated with such complaints, behind Verizon, whose old accounts they were collecting on at the time. Numerous consumer complaints at the time were reporting that they were telling consumers calling to dispute unrecognized debts that the alleged "debts" must be due to "id theft" so they had to file police reports, obtain old lease agreements or otherwise prove they didn't owe the suspect debts, or pay them. This deceptive tactic actually grossly skewed FTC's id theft complaint patterns for that year.
I am a college student and while I may not have the years of experience as some here may, I do know right from wrong. If someone contacted me and they had the wrong person, then why would I not cooperate and clear up any confusion. Instead people here preach " sue them, get money from them" and other practices. Now I know why companies have to build in a 10-15% margin for loss / litigation expenses into products. If anyone here has never made a mistake in their life, then please teach me how to walk on water also. It appears that this company is "purchasing" debt from other companies and relies on the accuracy of the original companies information. So let's be smart for a moment. If you are the owner of a business and someone gives you information and someone claims that information is not correct. Would you not want to verify that information. Or, would you go off half cocked like some people here.. I would want to verify that information. Why, first to make sure I was doing the right thing, next I would want verification so that I could go back to the original party and explain to them the information is bad and request a refund or correct information. Lastly, I would want to verify information because people & companies will sometimes state things that is are not true.. This is called due diligence.
As far as people claiming that they owe money, however since I didn't pay it within X amount of years, I don't feel I should pay it.. This just blows my mind... Let's put the show on the other foot for a moment.. You lend a friend $500.00 for something and they lost their job so they could not pay you right away. Then you lost contact with that person, but run into them a couple years later.. You mean to tell me that we are all so wealthy that we would tell that person.. Hey I know you owe me hundreds of dollars, but yeah,, forget about it... Now multiply this by the tens of thousands of people that owe you money..Man I hope when I finish college I get your type of job where I can throw away millions of dollars and it not effect me one bit...
I guess in short, it takes all types to make the world go around.. Now I guess you can takes your shots at me for having ethical and moral behavior and not try to get a couple bucks from someone for a error, or try to get away with someones money because I failed to pay it back in time...
Just Saying.....
Angie
Your talking points indicate you know too much about the practices in your industry to be who you claim to be, while your attempt to align your description of yourself to try to convince others you are like them shows a knowledge of common hard sell and NLP techniques. (If you don't know what these are, why don't you ask your trainer?)
You are attempting to portray alleged debts as "legitimate", debt collectors as "honest", and the burden of proof as on the "consumer". You are attempting to portray "id theft" as some reason the consumer should tolerate and believe debt collectors, when much evidence suggests "id theft" is being used as a deceptive collection tactic by unethical debt collectors.
Futhermore, you are attempting to portray the many complaints against debt collectors, and in particular against AFNI, as just people who don't want to pay their debts, when MOST complaints against AFNI are actually the result of their attempts to collect on unowed debts through deception while failing to validate.
Debt collectors have attempted to shift the burden of proof onto consumers for years, despite FDCPA, statutory, contract, and case law precident that says otherwise.
FDCPA clearly says that debt collectors are required to notify consumers that if they dispute alleged debts, they will obtain verification and send it to them, yet debt collectors routinely attempt to convince consumers otherwise, in an attempt to evade their legal obligations.
FDCPA also clearly says that no court may use failure of a consumer to dispute an alleged debt as any proof it is owed.
FDCPA also clearly says that debt collectors may not use harassment, abuse, or deception to collect debts.
There is substantial case law on this, including decisions by federal judges finding that debt collection employees attempting to deceive ocnsumers with false statements or half truths regarding validation are in violation of FDCPA for deceptive collection.
This particular debt collector, AFNI, has a record of complaints indicating employees are falsely telling consumers that alleged debts they never heard of are due to "id theft". This shows up as a large spike in one study of FTC id theft complaints in the year 2007, when AFNI started collecting on a large batch of old Verizon accounts left over from their acquisition of MCI and other telecoms.
In a 3 month sample of FTC complaint data from that year (see Hoofnagle's reports), Verizon jumped to #1, with AFNI as #2, as company names associated with "id theft". All other debt collectors were either at the bottom of the 25 company list, or not even mentioned. You continued high on the list in 2008.
What appears to have happened is that AFNI bought this portfolio, and started mailing out millions of demand letters per month, with little real attempt to find the correct person other than cheap computer matching by name. This resulted in tens of thousands of complaints, as people getting collection letters for accounts they didn't owe started calling, with many then receiving just a deceptive con job from the employees they reached.
AFNI attempted to make money off their own "mistakes", by attempting to convince consumers they had to prove "id theft" or pay these suspect bills, even though the bills were in effect fabrications, concocted by sending bills to people at other addresses in no way related to the original account data.
There are many complaints even that AFNI sent bills to people who never had their names on accounts, that they were only connected by once having lived at some address, often years earlier. Other complaints reported people who had been living overseas at the time got bills for alleged "Verizon accounts" in states they had never even lived in when they got back.
A number of news stories during this period documented consumers attempting to resolve unowed AFNI "debts", with no results until reporters were contacted. Then, miraculously, some AFNI or Verizon spokesperson would check, and find there was some "mistake". In one absurd case, AFNI was attempting to collect thousands on what turned out to be an old business account.
This is beyond incompetance or even negligence. It suggests malicious avoidance of good faith compliance with validation obligations, intending to maximize profit by delaying any resolution of even ridiculous claims.
This is not "id theft". It isn't even credible that all these "errors" were caused by some "id theft crime wave" that hit Verizon. It is fraudulent billing, followed by an attempt to con people into paying unowed "debts" with illegal harassment and deception.
AFNI's BBB complaint rate shot through the roof, with their complaints to the Illinois AG similarly rocketing. (AFNI got their BBB "A" rating by paying them off.)
All the consumer complaint forums also registered spikes in AFNI complaints, increasing to many times their 2006 monthly rates, along with reporting the excuses people were subjected to when they called: that supposedly the callers were victims of "id theft", but that unless they jumped through a bunch of hoops filing police reports and finding documentation proving they lived elsewhere from some alleged account address, then they had to pay these bogus "debts".
The FTC complaint data also registered the excuses that AFNI employees were making, as this spike in "id theft" complaints mentioning Verizon and ANFI.
Your own claim to be an "id theft victim" reveals that you are already trained and familiar with this deceptive collection tactic used by AFNI.
You probably got good bonuses in past years, but the courts are beginning to catch up.
"Seeger" showed that you didn't actually check your compliance practices with an attorney, instead relying on generic fliers from ACA.
A couple years, a federal judge found (in "Hale v. AFNI", a 3 state class action) that your routine response letter, sent out when people requested validation and used as a "brush off", was deceptive.
In addition, the Minnesota AG has repeatedly had to investigate claims of attempts to collect on unowed debts, while failing to validate, initially regarding more Verizon "accounts", and more recently Qwest "accounts". For some reason, AFNI and Qwest just don't know how this keeps happening.
You haven't changed, including your attempts to argue your way out of your clearly defined legal compliance obligations. Like every debt collector, you have your pattern of tactics, typically focussed on sloppy identification and cheap dunning, combined with stalling and deception with consumers dealing with your "mistakes".
The "con" aspect of your tactics is easily apparent, and you can still find many discussions across the net detailing the many deceptive tactics AFNI was known to employ. The history of your activities is preserved for eternity.
Anyone with an intelligence analysis, PSYOPS, advertizing or PR, or even Poker background could have told you what happens when you try to gain advantage from deception repeatedly until you get found out. Heck, your own teenagers could tell you. You destroy your credibility.
One thing you should realize as you grow up, is that it isn't the rest of the world's job to make you profitable by cleaning up your "mistakes". Most people actually pay their bills, and when they find they are targetted for a cheap con like this, they are rightfully outraged. You save a buck, cut corners, and make mistakes, expect to pay for it yourself.