RPM trying to collect a fake debt
Complaint
JP
Country: United States
On 4 Apr 08 I got a call from Receivables Performance Management (RPM) claiming that I owe $85 on a Verizon account from 2000. I know that I’ve never had a Verizon account, and that my phone account from 2000 (I forget which company) was paid properly. So I told the RPM rep that they were full of s**t, and that I wanted written proof that this debt is actually mine. They had the last 4 of my SSN and tried to pass that off as “proof” that their info was legitimate. I still didn’t fall for it and asked for everything in writing.
Fortunately I have records that go back that far. I also called Verizon to confirm that they don’t have any account information with my name on it. Surprisingly they have no record of me ever having an account with them. I then went online to find out if RPM is some sort of scam. They are a “legitimate” company, yet seem to be practicing what I would describe as predatory debt collection, or legal extortion. Unfortunately, there is not much information on the internet yet about RPM. However, there is a lot of information about AFNI, who seem to be doing the same thing.
So, after I found this web page, and read all of the information about AFNI, I downloaded the FDCPA and FCRA and read them. I’m sending RPM a letter in accordance with the FDCPA. I’m also sending the letter to my state’s AG and the WA state AG. (RPM is located in Bothell WA.) I also checked all of my credit reports to make sure that nothing has been placed on them. I’ll continue to monitor my credit reports very closely for the next few months. As this develops I’ll update this comment.
I’m considering contacting a lawyer to see if what RPM is doing is in any way actually extortion. It’s a crime that the max penalty under FDCPA and FCRA is only $1000 or actual damages. Obviously that small amount isn’t enough of an incentive to keep these companies from violating the law. I’m also going to contact my Congressmen about this. Maybe if enough of us complain the law can get changed?
Oh, and a huge thanks to the poster on this site TJ! His information and advice was invaluable!!
Fortunately I have records that go back that far. I also called Verizon to confirm that they don’t have any account information with my name on it. Surprisingly they have no record of me ever having an account with them. I then went online to find out if RPM is some sort of scam. They are a “legitimate” company, yet seem to be practicing what I would describe as predatory debt collection, or legal extortion. Unfortunately, there is not much information on the internet yet about RPM. However, there is a lot of information about AFNI, who seem to be doing the same thing.
So, after I found this web page, and read all of the information about AFNI, I downloaded the FDCPA and FCRA and read them. I’m sending RPM a letter in accordance with the FDCPA. I’m also sending the letter to my state’s AG and the WA state AG. (RPM is located in Bothell WA.) I also checked all of my credit reports to make sure that nothing has been placed on them. I’ll continue to monitor my credit reports very closely for the next few months. As this develops I’ll update this comment.
I’m considering contacting a lawyer to see if what RPM is doing is in any way actually extortion. It’s a crime that the max penalty under FDCPA and FCRA is only $1000 or actual damages. Obviously that small amount isn’t enough of an incentive to keep these companies from violating the law. I’m also going to contact my Congressmen about this. Maybe if enough of us complain the law can get changed?
Oh, and a huge thanks to the poster on this site TJ! His information and advice was invaluable!!
Comments
Ignore them?
Pay phony "debts" you don't owe?
Or do you work for them?
Only way you could actually know that, or alternatively only reason you would bother to claim that, is because you work for them.
"Fortune 500" status is hardly any guarantee of legal compliance, and their legal compliance has no relationship to your own.
Verizon, Sprint, and Direct TV all have a long history of settlements with various Attorneys General. Note that all of these settlements resulted in fines or refunds of questionable charges.
Recent Verizon settlements.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2007/oct/oct23a_07.html
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases09/pr20091207a.html
Fraudulent 3rd party charges, improperly handled by Verizon.
http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/opinion/columns/3569.html
Use of Verizon's long distance billing system by criminal modem hijackers to submit fraudulent long distance charges.
http://www22.verizon.com/pages/modemsettlement
Settlement agreement between MN AG and Sprint/Nextel related to cramming of early termination fees related to improper contract extensions.
http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/SprintClaimForm.asp
2007 lawsuit and settlement, same issue.
http://www.startribune.com/business/70190587.html
Texas lawsuit, representing a fee as a "tax".
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=1918
DirectTV settlement with 22 Attorneys General, $5 million penalty.
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2005/121205.htm
If as you say, you only collect on "debt" still owned by the original creditor, then as "agent" for your client, your actions are their actions, and both of you are presumed to know of any questionable legal status regarding accounts you are collecting on. If your client has reached a settlement with regard to some debt you are collecting on, then your attempt to collect in spite of the settlement may be a violation of it, both by yourself, and by your client.
1) Attempting to collect on unowed debts. Consumers allege they are being pressured to pay debts they don't owe, on "accounts" they never had with companies they never did business with, often reporting they were subjected to abusive or deceptive "talk-offs".
2) Repeated phone contacts with the wrong people, who do not even have the same name as who you are trying to contact, with repeated failures to cease calling when requested.
Both patterns are consistent with high levels of erroneous skip-tracing combined with compliance problems related to abusive or deceptive collection.
BBB's report on RPM confirms the same profile.
BBB complaint allegations include categories consistent with failure to comply with federal (FDCPA) and state debt collection laws (e.g. "harassing calls", "rude behavior", "receiving payment...not applied to the debt owed", "trying to collect on debts that have been paid in full", "calls that continue after they have been told they have the wrong number".
http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/busines ... ood-wa-18025132
"...
BBB Rating for Receivables Performance Management LLC
Based on BBB files, Receivables Performance Management LLC has a BBB Rating of F on a scale from A+ to F.
Reasons for this rating include:
Number of complaint(s) filed against business that were not resolved.
421 complaints filed against business
Failure to respond to 2 complaints filed against business.
...
Complaints allege constant harassing calls, rude behavior, the business receiving payment from a consumer and it is not applied to the debt owed, the business trying to collect on debts that have been paid in full, the business calling consumers and asking for the wrong people and calls that continue after they have been told they have the wrong number.
...
Marketplace Experience for Receivables Performance Management LLC
When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.
BBB processed a total of 421 complaints about Receivables Performance Management LLC in the last 36 months, our standard reporting period. Of the total of 421 complaints closed in 36 months, 109 were closed in the last year.
..."
109 complaints over the last year, vs. 421 complaints over the last 3 years, confirms essentially a constant rate of complaints, indicating little attempt to systematically respond to complaint issues.
It is always better to communicate in writing, certified return receipt requested, once you have determined you are dealing with an outfit who will use any excuse to ignore your legitimate notifications. It makes it easier to establish in court that the notices were given, and when.
However, repeated abuse and harassment by telephone may not be recorded, for example, if the calls occur to a place of employment (and obviously the debt collector isn't going to send you a transcript incriminating themselves). The calls may still be in violation of FDCPA. Contemporaneous logs documenting phone calls and their details can be used as evidence.
As for calling a cell phone, use your autodialer to make those calls, and you are probably already in violation.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf
No requirement that notice that it is inconvenient to call, or not to call a place of employement be in writing. It is sufficient that it is "known or should be known", or "knows or has reacon to know". Telling a debt collector on the phone would establish that they "should know" or "have reason to know" for purposes of FDCPA.
Employer's receptionist or other employees telling a debt collector this would also establish it. Employees have no obligation to receive harassing debt collection calls, even for other employees, nor do employers have any obligation to allow their employees to be harassed, so a simple notice of employer policy would establish a cause of action by any employee.
"§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection
(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt—
...
(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o’clock antimeridian and before 9 o’clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer’s location;
...
(3) at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.
..."
Refuse to pay is equivalent to cease communications. FDCPA couldn't spell it out any clearer. Just put it in writing, certified return receipt requested.
"...
(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except—
(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further efforts are being terminated;
(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or
(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.
If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.
(d) For the purpose of this section, the term “consumer” includes the consumer’s spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.
.."
Failing to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed is a "false or misleading representation". No requirement that such dispute be in writing.
"§ 807. False or misleading representations
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
...
(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
..."
Written "dispute" of a debt within 30 days of receipt of notice is sufficient to trigger prohibition against continued collection. Dispute need not say what is disputed, only that it is disputed.
"...
§ 809. Validation of debts
...
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
...
(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
..."
Either RPM has now documented that the consumer "refuses to pay", or they haven't.
If they have, on the credit report as they claim, and the consumer did not in fact say that, then it is posting information they knew to be false to a credit report.
If they haven't, or can't (whether by their policy or by CRA policy), they threatened to do so, so it is deceptive collection, making threats they have no intention to carry out or cannot legally carry out. The use of such theats is also abusive.
Any way you look at it, it was both a deceptive and abusive talk-off, also in violation of FDCPA. The talk-off was made for the purposes of intimidating a consumer that the debt collector already knew was disputing the debt, but that the debt collector expected might be unsophisticated enough to fall for it (i.e. could be either deceived or intimidated into paying anyway).
In fact, this consumer attempted to obtain a mailing address to exercise their right to dispute, even indicated they were represented by their attorney, even gave the name of their attorney, and repeatedly they were met with abusive screaming.
How many ways can you violate? Shall we count the ways?
If you owe a bill there is plenty of advice earlier of what to do at that point.
BBB report, rated "F". Nature of BBB complaints matches complaints on this site.
http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/busines ... ood-wa-18025132
"...
BBB Rating for Receivables Performance Management LLC
Based on BBB files, Receivables Performance Management LLC has a BBB Rating of F on a scale from A+ to F.
Reasons for this rating include:
Number of complaint(s) filed against business that were not resolved.
422 complaints filed against business
Failure to respond to 2 complaints filed against business.
Complaints allege constant harassing calls, rude behavior, the business receiving payment from a consumer and it is not applied to the debt owed, the business trying to collect on debts that have been paid in full, the business calling consumers and asking for the wrong people and calls that continue after they have been told they have the wrong number.
..."
It should be viewed as a red flag indicating the possibility of deception such as an attempt to collect on a debt known to be questionable, or an attempt to collect from the wrong person.
If they have violated the law (FDCPA, FCRA, or similar state laws), then you can sue.
No one enforces ANY law, unless they choose to. In fact, most agencies get to choose whether and how they spend their budgets to enforce what laws against who they choose.
Congress (in its great wisdom) provided a private right to sue under both FDCPA and FCRA, so that enforcement was not limited to just state or federal regulators. It also allowed under both laws for courts to award attorney fees if you prevail. FDCPA allows for actual and statutory damages, FCRA for actual damages, and you can sue in your home court, state or federal.
Statutory damages have been eroded by inflation since FDCPA was first passed, but check your state laws, since penalties might be higher.
Yes, if they say "yeah, it's accurate", the credit bureaus will keep it on, but if you want to sue, then you dispute through the credit bureaus, they say "yeah", and you can sue if they are wrong.
No, nothing can be done without courts. That is how our system works. As for attorneys, you could sue in small claims court, but if you have a strong case, it may be an advantage in reaching a settlement to have an attorney when your opponent knows they may end up paying his fees as well.
All you do by handling it yourself is possibly let your adversary off on some technicality, and work for nothing to save your adversary paying your attorney. Assuming you can find competent representation, what's the point in that?