Scam Collection Calls
Complaint
MCH
Country: United States
I again received a call from this number/company in my cell phone. They call 1-2x every week. so irritating.
I had long straightened out my credit card debts in 2002. Suddenly, since 2008, I started getting calls from this company. I do not know how they got my cell ph number. I read almost all the complaints ahainst this company and now am convinced they they are scammers.
Should we all band together and file a class action suit? Or, report this company to the authorities in ur respective cities/states?
I had long straightened out my credit card debts in 2002. Suddenly, since 2008, I started getting calls from this company. I do not know how they got my cell ph number. I read almost all the complaints ahainst this company and now am convinced they they are scammers.
Should we all band together and file a class action suit? Or, report this company to the authorities in ur respective cities/states?
Comments
For example, this is one such post. (They are all worded the same, although some sites block URLs or phone numbers.)
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-29e814622984e67/portfolio-recovery-information
"PRAInfo
4 Feb 2011
For information purposes only. Consumers with concerns regarding Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC can contact Portfolio Recovery Associates’ via our web site at www.praresolutioncenter.com, call and speak with one of our quality service specialists toll-free at 1-866-925-7109 or send us an e-mail at qualityservice@portfoliorecovery.com. Quality service specialists are on staff to assist between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday – Friday EST."
The wording is very carefully chosen. In particular, note the "for information purposes only", and the PR verbiage about "concerns" and "quality service specialists".
They appear to be trying to tip-toe around possible FDCPA debt collector communications notification overshadowing, with their "for information only" part while trying to get some benefit from channelling consumer complaints toward the indicated contacts. Even though their website has their address, it still directs consumers to contact them by email, website, or phone, with no mention of contacting them by U.S. Mail.
You might infer that they have now somehow become "public minded", maybe even altruistic, but complaints of the same problems continue, and may actually be rising, if this thread's recent activity is any indication. The nature of complaints against them has continued to be: harassing calls, calls to the wrong people, and attempts to collect on unowed debts.
What does this mean? Why would a debt collector widely but carefully attempt to channel consumer complaints in this manner?
1) FTC has stated that there are problems in the debt collection industry, and they held hearings in a number of cities a couple years back looking at what changes in regulation might be required, due to changes in debt collection practices.
2) The recession and its recovery has only magnified levels of consumer complaints, including complaints of deceptive and abusive collection, and collecting debt from people who do not owe it.
3) Although FTC has only filed a couple major lawsuits per year against debt collectors for many years, they have stated that it is their policy to focus such lawsuits on the largest and most egregious cases. In effect, their strategy is focused on making examples of the worst cases.
As one example of this policy, FTC reached a large settlement with Allied Interstate in 2010, who very quickly agreed to pay $1.75 Million and agree to stringent compliance policies to settle with FTC. Despite the usual denials, you don't pay $1.75 Million for nothing.
It appears that Allied Interstate got caught in numerous violations of FDCPA, including harassing and abusive calling of both consumers and third parties, disclosure to third parties, deception and threats to take actions they had no intention of taking, and generally stonewalling and ignoring consumer disputes while continuing to collect on unowed debts.
Also note the terms of the settlement. Those "settlement terms" outline what they are alleged to have been doing.
Allied has agreed that when the consumer disputes a debt, or "a reasonable person would consider the information on which Allied is relying to collect the debt to be implausible, facially unreliable, or missing essential information", they must cease collection until they have obtained verification from the original creditor.
In addition, if they fail to substantiate the alleged debt, they can only return it to the client that assigned it to them, and if they bought it they cannot resell it. Note that this applies without regard to whether the alleged debt is disputed within 30 days.
Now they get to comply with their very own appropriately tightened version of FDCPA.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/10/alliedinterstate.shtm
"For Release: 10/21/2010
Debt Collector Will Pay $1.75 Million to Settle FTC Charges
Ignored Consumers’ Disputes Without Checking Its Information for Accuracy
To resolve Federal Trade Commission charges, one of the nation’s largest debt collectors will pay $1.75 million for allegedly making repeated telephone calls to collect from the wrong person, to collect the wrong amount, or both. The settlement is the second largest civil penalty obtained by the FTC in a debt collection case.
“Debt collectors had better make sure their information is accurate, or they could end up paying a big penalty,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “There is no excuse for trying to collect debt from someone if you can’t confirm that they actually owe it.”
..."
Allied Interstate, in news stories, tried to spin the settlement as a problem with their computers calling the wrong numbers, but the statement by FTC's David Vladeck makes clear what the issue really was.
Note that the charges are consistent with many consumer complaints on this and other sites not only against Allied Interstate, but also against a number of other large debt collectors, including Portfolio Recovery Associates.
Something is up.
They may be "under the gun" to get their consumer complaints under control, yet based on consumer complaints their collection tactics haven't changed. In fact, it would be difficult for a large company that had institutionalized illegal collection tactics to be able to change anything in a short time.
By diverting consumer complaints toward these "quality service specialists", they may be attempting to cover up the extent of their practices at a time when they are being looked at closely. (They may even be in some settlement negotiation, but we will have to wait to see.) Similar cases of debt collectors "finding religion" have occurred, where they often become instant BBB "choirboys" to try to divert high complaint levels through BBB and away from FTC or state AGs.
If you are having problems with illegal debt collection harassment and abuse, evasion of attempts to dispute or validate debts, or deception to convince you to pay unowed debts (such as telling you "it's too late so you owe it"), your best response, as always, is to report violations to FTC and your state Attorney General, and seek the assistance of a consumer attorney.
Always communicate with debt collectors IN WRITING, MAILED CERTIFIED, to dispute and request validation, report violations, or demand they cease communications, as it documents your request with proof from the Post Office that you sent it, and they received it, should you need to litigate under FDCPA or FCRA.
The PRA "information" appears to be aimed at diverting you away from those responses that document the problem and best protect your rights. There must be a reason they have gone to the effort to do that.
They may be attempting to control damage to their credibility caused by the Wall Street Journal article that mentioned a lawsuit over their use of "Kunkle affidavits", bearing the signature of a long dead Providian employee routinely used by other affidavit signing employees, in lawsuits against alleged debtors.
Note that the Missouri AG is still interested in them. They managed to get a lawsuit by the Missouri AG dismissed back in June 2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297 ... 2142690400.html
"DECEMBER 31, 2010 Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector
Deceased Woman's Name Was Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
Martha Kunkle has come back to life.
She died in 1995. Yet her signature later appeared on thousands of affidavits submitted by one of the nation's largest debt collectors, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc., in lawsuits filed against borrowers.
Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle's name reflects an epidemic of mass-produced, sloppy and inaccurate documentation in the debt-collection industry. Lawsuits have surged as more borrowers fall behind on payments and collection firms turn to courts to get what they are owed.
After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates decided in early 2008 that any documents bearing Ms. Kunkle's name had "defects" and shouldn't be used when trying to collect debts, a company spokeswoman said.
Last July, though, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates sought a court judgment in a lawsuit against a Seattle woman for $2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she allegedly owed. It was a cookie-cutter case, except for one thing: To vouch for the debt's validity, the Norfolk, Va., company included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle.
The spokeswoman said the document was "inadvertently used by our outside counsel" because of "human error," adding that the suit was dropped later "upon review of the case."
The company said Ms. Kunkle's name isn't on any other affidavits submitted to judges since early 2008 by Portfolio Recovery Associates or outside lawyers who handle most of its debt-collection cases.
"When you see corner-cutting like this, it's alarming," Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said about the Kunkle case. Ms. Swanson is investigating numerous buyers and collectors of consumer debt for falsifying affidavits. A spokeswoman for the company, the second-largest debt buyer in the U.S. by revenue, said the company is unaware of the investigation and declined further comment.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he wants to investigate whether Martha Kunkle's name appears on any affidavits used to collect debt in the state of Missouri.
PRA rebuttal letter to WSJ:
http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=457322
Federal lawsuits filed against PRA.
http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=PORTFOLIO+RECOVERY+ASSOCIATES
39 in February, or 1.4 per day,
37 in January, or 1.2 per day,
23 in December, or .74 per day,
23 in November, or .77 per day,
19 in October, or .61 per day,
21 in September, or .70 per day
Their rate of FDCPA lawsuits per day has practically doubled since the beginning of 2011, compared to 2010, in one big step.
Their "For information purposes" notices, posted across all the consumer complaint forums, even little known ones, within a very short period of time, might be an attempt to divert consumers dealing with their robocalls or demand letters from immediately contacting an attorney. Anyone Googling their name is likely to come across the WSJ article.
Get an attorney.
"Portfolio Recovery Associates Faces TCPA Class Action
Atlanta, GA: A Class Action lawsuit has been filed against Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (stock ticker PRAA) - in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons in the State of Georgia who, since October 28, 2010, received a non-emergency telephone call from PRA to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide prior express consent for such calls during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed. The action is captioned Kimberly Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., and is numbered 11-CV-00624.
According to the Complaint, PRA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using automatic dialing systems or an artificial or prerecorded voice to contact cell phone users about purported debts without their prior consent. As described in the Complaint, Ms. Bartlett, the named plaintiff in the action, was repeatedly contacted since October 28, 2010 on her cell phone about a purported credit card debt. The Complaint avers that Plaintiff never consented to those calls, nor did she provide PRA with her telephone number.
Under the TCPA, PRA could be ordered to pay attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of the lawsuit, and statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation, and/or $1,500 for each knowing and/or willing violation. According to the Complaint, the potential Class Members are estimated to number in the tens of thousands.
..."
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1:2011cv00624/173190/
"Zimmerman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 7:09-cv-04602-SCR)
In a class action complaint, Lemberg & Associates is representing Jason Zimmerman, who is suing Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The suit alleges that Portfolio Recovery sent Mr. Zimmerman a letter on Portfolio Recovery Litigation Department letterhead, threatening a lawsuit if Mr. Zimmerman didn’t pay the debt or make payment arrangements within 14 days. Along with the letter, the debt collection agency sent a set of legal-looking documents, such as a draft Summons, Complaint, Affidavit of Military Investigation, and Affidavit of Ownership and Sale of Claim.
The lawsuit revolves around a number of FDCPA-related issues. For example, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from sending documents that mimic legal documents; from threatening to take legal action in an improper venue; and from sending documents that might confuse the “least sophisticated consumer.” In addition, the suit alleges that Portfolio Recovery placed the required notice of a consumer’s right to dispute the claim on the last page of the mailing, with the legal-looking documents overshadowing the statement of rights.
Because these types of collection letters are mass-mailed form letters, it is likely that many other consumers received these notices. By bringing this class action lawsuit, other consumers will be represented as well.
..."
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2010cv04670/245821/
They prey on the hope that someone may become intimidtated by their repeated phone calls and actually speak to them in person, hence-Starting the debt all over....
( Your covered by the statue of limitations untill you speak to one of these BoZo'S and then the debt becomes open/valid for another limitation statue)
IGNORE their calls---
When I recieve a phone call from them I answer and say "BOTTOM FEEDER"
Lick Me! -They never respond. SKANKS!