Harassment
Complaint
Debra M. Persiano
Country: United States
I got a call today at home from a man stating he was a process server for Collin County DA's Office and he is with the Sheriff's office and needed to come serve a warrant on me. I was shocked and asked why? He stated do you live ....are you still at this address are you now at this address and I stated who are you? He again, stated he was from the county going to serve court papers on me today. He gave me a toll free number for what he stated was the county's office which is 1 866.872.6116 gave me a case no. which he called a Cause No. 008307-TX. I called the number was transferred to a Mr. Fisher's office who stated that law suite in the amount of $6,214.24 was filed in Collin Co., Tx and that warrant was out for me. He then after back and forth said let me get more information from my secretary and state this was for an outstanding debt in from Capital One a credit card that I obtained several years back and had disputes over interest charges etc. He stated that if I did not want to go to court or jail that I could pay $1,951.00 in full by end of business today and this matter could be cleared up. I explained that I recently lost my job etc. Anyway, he stated that I needed to call him back by EOB today or they will serve the papers. Ok, so that was a heads up for me. I called the DA's office nothing is filed on me as of today, after searching PMG it is clear that they do not practice best practices for collections and have been in trouble for this before back in 2004. I need someone to give me advise. I want to pay off my debt, I don't want this type of collections to continue this upset me, made my blood pressure raise, this type of collections are not the right thing to do. Had they called and ask to make arrangements or give me an opportunity to clear the matter, rather then threaten me by taken legal action, or harassment stating they are sending a sheriff over today. This is wrong, bad business, and should not continue this company is bad news.
Comments
It has been reported before, in connection with credit inquiries:
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/QrqUYTUISgCLBgjMeJtSCQ/16
"pup - 10 May 2011
First, I was alerted that an inquiry had been made on my credit. After some digging, I found the company that had pulled it and asked what w2as up. They were surprised, but it was clear they had all my information and previous addresses. They did an inquiry through experian on my credit report. I noticed the inquiry, called them, was hung up on and threatened, then four days later received a call from "process server verfication". I asked for his information so that I could verify his company, and he could not give it to me. Told me I needed to call another number. He didn't seem to have notes that I had called them previously. They tried to settle a debt from 10 years ago. I called the company who supposedly filed the lawsuit and they agreed I am in very good standing with them (still have an active account, in fact). The first time I called, I was told that the credit company had been trying to reach me for months but because I ignored them they were sending law inforcement to my house. The number that "Michael Jones" from "process server verification" company gave me to call to "setup" a time for the to serve me was 888-393-6042. He also gave me a case number. When I wanted more information, he said hold on, let me get my supervisor and hung up on me. The company that pulled my credit was listed as DBA/ARPA at 1251 Pomona Rd. Ste 105, Corona, CA 92882. This seems to be the same company as Pacific Management Recovery and others.
..."
Note in the above report that the consumer contacted the alleged original creditor and verified there was no outstanding debt. The scammers used the credit report to get old account information to fake this "debt".
Was your inquiry on Experian as well?
As a "hard" inquiry, what was the alleged "permissible purpose" for the inquiry?
You can expect the extortion calls to start within a few days, but the calls might be under some other front name. You might play "dumb and panicked" and try to draw them out. See how far they are willing to go with outragous threats or impersonation of LE, court officials, or attorneys.
Contact FTC.
You have made the following deceptive and misleading statements aimed at furthering the interests of the scam:
1) "A company does not have to contact you to collect on the debt."
Half truth. They aren't getting any payment without contact.
2) "Once an account has charged off it's your job to track down the company that ownes the debt by using your credit report, "
Actually it's not.
You are trying to imply that these "debts" are "real", and "owned" by this "company".
First, indications are that these "debts" are fake. No one has any obligation to "track down the company that ownes the debt" when this is just a con. File fraud complaints with FTC, state AGs, FBI, etc.
Second, under FDCPA, when a debt collector has contacted an alleged debtor, they are obligated under FDCPA to send a "g" letter. This scam never does. If the consumer disputes and requests validation, the debt collector must cease all collection acitivity until proof of the debt is obtained from the original creditor and sent to the consumer. This scam ALWAYS evades validation requests.
3) "Otherwise it will just remain unpaid and may turn into a judgment."
Another deceptive statement, misrepresenting both that these "debts" are "real", that this "company" supposedly "sues", and misrepresenting the legal process to get a judgement, implying that it just happens.
A "debt", fake or real, doesn't just "turn into a judgement". Only a court can decide a debt is owed, and issue a judgement. Obtaining a judgement on these fake "debts" would require a fraud upon the court, through filing of false statements as part of the lawsuit, as well as "sewer service". There have been no credible consumer reports of actual lawsuits, while there have been many reporting that on checking with the local courthouse, no "lawsuit" was filed.
4) "The company that ownes the debt should be on your credit report."
Nothing requires any owner of a debt to report to the credit reporting agencies. With a fake "debt" scam, it is safer for them NOT to post any tradeline like a normal debt collector would. That would create undeniable evidence of FCRA violations.
5) "If it's not they do not own the debt or it has fallen off your credit report and your no longer liable to pay the debt."
Not as simple as that, as that depends on various state laws and statutes of limitations or repose. However, no credible consumer post has reported one of the Corona Scam fronts to have specifically posted a "collection account". Most common are reports of the scam responding to validation requests with some "settlement letter", claiming that when you pay them, their letter will get the original creditor's posting removed or updated.
The "settlement letter" is a deceptive response to a validation request, aimed at deceiving unsophisticated consumers into believing it "proves" the debt is owed. Statements regarding "updating" or "removing" negative credit lines are simply false, as this scam debt collector has no authority to change the postings of other data furnishers.
"Greg", what exactly is your interest in defending this particular scam with clear misrepresentations of FDCPA and FCRA?
Have you just had the usually poor compliance training you get with many collection agencies, or do you specifically work for this one, in the city of Corona?
If so, under what front name?
http://workplacelaw.ws/index.php?option=com_c ... id=19&Itemid=17
Supposedly the CRAs "vet" or review their prospective clients to ensure they have a "permissible purpose" for pulling credit reports as defined by FCRA, but beyond apparently cursory checks of licenses it does not appear they do much to prevent credit reports from getting in the hands of even criminal scams.
Their clients are required to "certify" to the CRAs the reason for pulling credit reports, which must legally be one of the FCRA "permissible purposes", but again, there is nothing to stop a client from falsifying a certification of permissible purpose.
Occationally a CRA gets caught when a "client" illegally uses their services (e.g. Pinto v. Pacific Creditors, or the ChoicePoint criminal security breach a few years back) but mostly the CRAs just claim all they have to do is require "certification", which leaves the door open to fraud. They are the gatekeepers of centralized access to extensive consumer identity and account information, but just wash their hands of responsibility.
Perimeter security is vulnerable at it's weakest link, so all it takes is one dishonest person with knowledge of normal CRA procedures to defeat this "security".
Problem is, the CRAs don't look behind the certification. If the certification is made under false pretenses, then the credit inquiry is illegal, violating FCRA and similar state laws. As we have seen, credit information can be used for fradulent purpooses other than conventional id theft, such as fake "debt" collection.
Companies pulling credit reports without permissible purpose as defined by FCRA can be sued by the consumer, after the fact. In addition, there are criminal penalties for pulling credit reports under false pretenses (fines and imprisonment under Title 18).
But this is the Corona Scam, using over 60 different names, and pulling credit reports under several of them, as they play "process server", "attorney", "court clerk", "sheriff's deputy", or whatever they want to make up. They just "disappear" behind another name when caught.
The number of aliases they use, with new ones every few months, shows that this is the strategy they intended from the start. They intended to pull credit reports as a central part of the scheme, and they intended to get away with it, even if they got sued.
They hide behind the uncertainty surrounding obtaining proof of ownership of any debt. They are using what Col. North taught us about deception, that getting away with it doesn't require that no one suspect it, only that there be enough "plausible deniability" to create uncertainty and evade responsibility, sufficent that no one acts.
Many consumer complaints report "collection attempts", using threats of some "lawsuit", implied by a call from someone claiming to be a "process server" allegedly "trying to locate" to "serve papers". Many also report calls to relatives, and threats of "arrest".
Many consumer complaints report that on checking with the courthouse, the "lawsuit" has been found to not exist.
Many consumer complaints report attempts to collect on "debts" they know are unowed, using direct or implied threats as above. Unowed debts may be allegedly with banks they NEVER had accounts from, with accounts they know they have no balance due on, or on accounts that were verified with the bank to have NOT BEEN SOLD.
FDCPA requires ALL debt collectors to send "g" letters within 5 days of first contact.
It also requires debt collectors to respond to validation requests. Numerous consumer complaints do not report ANY "g" letter, reporting that the first contact was by this "process server".
Some also report the "debt collector" claims a letter was sent, typically they claim "45 days ago", but no letter was received.
No credible consumer post reports receiving ANY validation, only "settlement letters". Many complaints report attempts to hide even their mail drop addresses, to evade validation requests.
All of the above points to a large fraudulent operation designed specifically for extorting payment on unowed debt.
"how can it be verified that they do not own it?"
Failure to ever validate points to not owning the debt. It points to bluff. A number of reports of confirmation with original creditors provide evidence of fraudulent collection on unowed debt.
"where was it purchased from?"
Validation would provide proof from the original creditor. Why believe it was "purchased" from anywhere, when they provide NO proof of any purchase, and no proof from the original creditor? Again, the deviation from normal debt collection industry practices points to bluff.
"is it at all possible that the owners did legally purchase the debt and simply tried to do a "play on words"as was told?"
It doesn't matter what "is at all possible". This is not some theoretical philisophical debate on what you could get away with (except, maybe in their minds).
FDCPA specifically prohibits use of deception in collection of any debt.
It also specifically prohibits threats of "arrest", or legal action that they cannot or do not intend to take.
It also requires validation.
The Corona Scam engages in numerous practices prohibited by FDCPA and FCRA (deception, threats of "arrest", threats of lawsuits, false identification, claiming to not be a debt collector, falsely claiming to be "process servers", "sheriff's deputies", "attorneys", "court clerks", etc.).
It also fails to comply with the required practices (identification as a debt collector, "g" letter notification, validation, disputes, permissible purpose) required by FDCPA and FCRA.
In effect, they have just turned FDCPA and FCRA on their head's, then made up a bunch of BS excuses to convince consumers that what they are doing is somehow legal.
The demands for money are real, the threats are real, and the fraud losses are real. A "play on words" IS deception. Obtaining money through illegal deception is fraud. Obtaining money through illegal threats is extortion.
"so confused right now..."
Deception doesn't have to convince you of what it claims. It is sufficient to confuse you enough that you take no action, while denying you access to evidence that might overcome your uncertainty. That is why in military and political intelligence analysis, "deception" is always linked to "denial", and called "d&d", for "denial and deception". It also illustrates the value of "plausible deniability". Hence all the shill posts that show up with these scams, trying to undermine and discredit the consumer complaints.
Contact Pat Cassidy and tell him what you know. All his contact info is here:
http://workplacelaw.ws/index.php?option=com_c ... id=19&Itemid=17
The date is consistent with the earlier report of an "audit".
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-877-401-6202/6
"David Thorn
14 Oct 2011
I hope you are happy to know that ALL of these offices were raided by Corona PD, Riverside FBI and the FTC today. And yes, they were breaking plenty of laws and FDCPA protocols. Wayne Lunsford is to blame. However, there are similar companies that do collect debt that a debtor DID accumulate. They buy these debts from companies who could not recover the money owed to them, so they sell groups of debts to these companies for a fraction of their worth. These companies ARE legally entitled to collect that debt. They CAN sue you and you CAN get your wages garnished. BUT, they are not allowed to say they ARE doing something that they actually AREN'T. If they say you're being sued, and they haven't actually filed the lawsuit, they are breaking the law. These offices obviously broke this law. I know first hand."
So far, there are several complaints reporting recent credit inquiries where it is not clear whether the inquiry occurred before or after this alleged raid.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-866-1313/4
"backtowork
1 h 46 min ago
your right but today we are back to work in a dif building doing it all over with a new name so hahahahaha
Caller: employee
..."
They have shown a wide variety of deceptive tactics.
As long as they keep calling, complaints will show up against their active numbers. There is no systematic way to deflect complaints since they are portraying themselves as a bunch of different "debt collectors".
In addition, just changing locations or grabbing a bunch of new numbers won't work, as it appears FTC is already tracking their 800 numbers through their telecom company.
You might contact FTC or the Corona PD.
Their response would at least tell you how interested they are in consumer complaints, regardless of how close they play their cards.