False collection
Complaint
Paul DeMott
Country: United States
I am the executor of my father's estate. Within one month of his death in 2007, I received a collection notice from AFNI claiming that my father owed Verizon a bill of over $6000.00 for a telephone line that was operative for several months in 1997 (ten years ago). The line was located in a state where my father has never lived.
I had managed my father's affairs for several years prior to his death and had never received a bill from Verizon. I checked his credit report and found that there were no bills reported as past due.
As I have checked on the internet, I have found numerous other reports of attempts by AFNI to collect bogus bills. I find it very suspicious that within two weeks of my father's death, AFNI receives a bill for collection that is nearly ten years old.
I had managed my father's affairs for several years prior to his death and had never received a bill from Verizon. I checked his credit report and found that there were no bills reported as past due.
As I have checked on the internet, I have found numerous other reports of attempts by AFNI to collect bogus bills. I find it very suspicious that within two weeks of my father's death, AFNI receives a bill for collection that is nearly ten years old.
Comments
With the Verizon batch, they have probably sent letters to over 5% of American households, many of them in error, yet still ignored disputes.
You might keep this in mind if you ever look for a job outside of the collection industry: Odds are high that you will be interviewed by someone that AFNI tried to con.
"...
The insincerity of AFNI's explanation crystallizes with the revelation that AFNI sends its letter to consumers who have no disputes at all—e.g., a consumer who offered a partial payment and stated that he could not pay more because he was disabled and on state aid (id. ¶ 18(a)) and another who stated that he was in prison and was prohibited by prison rules from paying the debt (id. ¶ 18(e)). As these consumers do not dispute their debts, it makes no sense for AFNI to send them letters claiming to be "unable to investigate" their "disputes" and requesting more information. Finally, as discussed above, AFNI also sends its letter in response to consumers whose letters provided the exact information AFNI requests. The Court cannot but conclude that AFNI's explanation for the statements in its letter is disingenuous.
..."
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/QrqUYTUISgCLBgjMeJtSCQ
Federal law, FDCPA, allows you to dispute alleged debts claimed by debt collectors. Another federal law, FCRA, allows you to dispute errors on your credit report through the credit reporting agencies.
If you never had a T-Mobile account, then AFNI is erroneously damaging your credit over a debt you do not owe. They have many complaints indicating they just locate anyone they can with similar names to those on old accounts, sending them a bill and damaging their credit.
If you find that AFNI has posted an erroneous debt on your credit report, send a dispute of that entry to the credit reporting agency. They are supposed to check back with the data furnisher (in this case AFNI), who is supposed to verify, correct, or remove it. If they "verify" it, when it is actually false, you can sue them for the damage it causes to your credit.
It just cost Allied Interstate $1.75 Million.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/10/alliedinterstate.shtm
"...
According to the FTC’s complaint, between 2006 and at least 2008, Allied Interstate, Inc. continued collection efforts even after consumers told the company they did not owe the debt, without verifying the accuracy of the disputed information. Allied is a Minnesota corporation that works out of offices in the United States, Canada, India, and the Philippines. The company also allegedly made improper harassing phone calls to consumers, using abusive language or calling many times a day for weeks or months, sometimes hanging up when the calls were answered. In addition, the complaint charges that Allied made repeat calls to third parties seeking to locate a consumer, revealed alleged debts to third parties without the consumers’ consent or court permission, and threatened legal action against consumers it did not intend to take. The complaint alleges that these practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
..."
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823207/101021alliedinterstatecmpt.pdf
Consent Decree:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823207/101021alliedinterstatedecree.pdf
http://debtcollectionagencysoftware.com/news/ ... r-1-75-million/
"...
But Allied noted that the FTC’s investigation focused on activity between 2006 and 2008 and that “while the FTC investigated many areas of activity, the consent decree focuses primarily on one problem — namely, repeat phone calls to wrong numbers.”
..."
Not likely that is what cost them $1.75 Million, "the second-largest civil penalty obtained by the government agency in a debt collection case".
More likely this is what drew the high penalty:
"...
“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.”
As a part of the consent decree with the FTC, Allied will be required to take specific steps when a consumer disputes the debt or when “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.”
..."
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
...
“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.”
..."