The following are some recent FDCPA case results that Virginia attorney John Cole Gayle, Jr. has obtained. The names of our clients have been withheld due to privacy laws.
- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The debt collector’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways.
In May 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The debt collector’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways.
In August 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The Debt collector contacted the Plaintiff at work, on the cell phone, and contacted co-workers. The Plaintiff also asked the debt collector to validate the debt, and to cease and desist contact. The debt collector also made false, deceptive, and misleading representation stating that a judgment had been entered against the Plaintiff.
In September 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The debt collector communicated with the Plaintiff at places known to be inconvenient to the Plaintiff, including his place of employment despite being repeatedly told to stop; failed to validate the debt at the time of initial contact and/or in writing within five days thereafter; failed to cease communications after being directed to do so by the Plaintiff; failed to disclose in the initial communication the Plaintiff had thirty days to dispute the debt; threatened to take legal action that cannot be taken; and, stated or implied that legal action is imminent when it is not.
In September 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including but not limited to:
a) Making false and misleading representations regarding the amount and status of the debt;
b) Communicating to any person credit information which should be known to be false, including failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
c) Using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of this debt,;
d) The attempt to collect an amount not authorized by any agreement between the creditor and the Plaintiff.
As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for her statutory damages costs and attorney fees.
In February 2010, the debt collector agreed to waive and release any right it had to collect on the balance of the debt. The debt collector further agreed to close the account and agreed not to sell or reassign the debt. The matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- The Plaintiff received a letter from a debt collector. The Plaintiff responded by disputing the alleged debt and requesting verification. No proper verification was supplied by the debt collector and the debt collector never advised any credit reporting agency that this debt was disputed. The three year statute of limitations expired on this unsigned agreement regarding this credit card account. After the expiration of the statute of limitations, the debt collector filed suit on this time barred debt against the Plaintiff.
As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for her statutory damages costs and attorney fees.
In February 2010, the debt collector agreed to waive and release any right it had to collect on the balance of the debt. The debt collector further agreed to close the account and agreed not to sell or reassign the debt. The matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- In September 2008, the automated calls from NCO Financial Systems, Inc. began to the plaintiff’s home telephone number. NCO was attempting to get in contact with an individual who was not the Plaintiff and identified the caller as a debt collector. In November 2008, the Plaintiff called the phone number and spoke to a supervisor. The Plaintiff advised the supervisor that the individual they were seeking did not live there and to please stop calling. The supervisor said NCO would immediately remove his number from their calling list.
The calls did not stop and on other occasions the Plaintiff informed other individuals at NCO that the person they were trying to find did not live there and to please stop calling. These calls would come during the day when he was sleeping, but were annoying, disrupting, and causing him loss of sleep and distress, since he works the night shift at his employment.
NCO=s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including but not limited to engaging in conduct of which the natural consequence is to harass, oppress, or abuse, intent to annoy, abuse, or harass. And, calling the plaintiff more than once after being told that the person NCO was seeking did not live there when NCO had no information that the previous response was erroneous and that plaintiff now had complete location information. As a result of the acts alleged above, the Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including physical ailments, embarrassment, and emotional distress.
In March 2009, NCO entered an Offer of Judgment for $1500 plus legal fees and costs, either agreed to or to be decided by the court. The Plaintiff accepted this offer.
- The first contact from the Defendant was a letter dated in September, 2009, and then the phone calls began. On September 12, 2009 Plaintiff was called and spoke to several men in succession, who coerced her into agreeing to make a monthly payment by telling her that the debt collector was going to garnish her husband’s wages if she did not pay $900 “Today,” then they said it had to be paid by the end of the week, then they said it had to be paid by the end of the month. One of these men claimed to be an attorney and in subsequent calls he abused her verbally, calling her “disgraceful,” among other things. Between September 12, 2009 and September 30, 2009, the debt collector called her about 25 or more times, sometimes 5 - 6 times a day. During these conversations the Plaintiff disputed the amount of the debt and requested validation, but none was ever received, and she was instructed that she had to get this money to avoid the garnishment of her husband’s wages, and that she should borrow the money from family and friends. She became very upset and worried about this, resulting in loss of sleep, and other physical ailments.
Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including but not limited to:
1. Engaging in conduct of which the natural consequence is to harass, oppress, or abuse, and causing the Plaintiff’s telephone to ring with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass.
2. Being otherwise verbally abusive in connection with the collection of this alleged debt
3. Using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of this debt.
4. Making false and misleading representations regarding the character and status of the debt.
5. Threatening to take legal action that cannot be taken.
6. Misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendant
7. The false representation, by one of the men calling her, that he was an attorney.
As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for her statutory damages costs and attorney fees.
In February, 2010 the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- Plaintiff co-signed a student loan note for friend. The loan company then advised the plaintiff that the loan amount was due. The Plaintiff was unaware of the debt was not being paid, since he was deployed at the time. Upon return from deployment, and within one year of the filing of the Complaint, plaintiff received a collection letter from the Defendant. Plaintiff spoke to the defendant about the debt, and was advised that if he did not “settle” the debt with them they would “handle things their way”. Plaintiff wrote a letter requesting validation of the debt to the defendant. Plaintiff never received any validation of the debt, but in mid- May, his parents were called and a message left on their answering machine that this was a debt collector, looking for the Plaintiff. This debt has now been reported to credit bureaus’ on Plaintiff’s credit history. The above mentioned actions of the Defendant have violated the FDCPA.
In January, 2010 the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.
- In 2000, the plaintiff had a personal credit card account. The Plaintiff received a phone call in November 2009 from a woman from an office, who left a voice message on his phone that she was trying to reach him about a pending legal matter scheduled to be processed in court. She stated or implied that this was a call from an attorney’s office and that she needed him to call to provide a deposition and/or statement. Believing this was a legal matter from an attorney’s office, plaintiff called the woman at the number she left. When he called he reached an office but the woman was busy so another female spoke to him. This collector advised him that her company was attempting to stop lawyers from filing charges against him in court for a delinquent account which was once owned by the credit card company. She advised that to prevent this he needed to pay $11,000 and what could he do to ensure payment. At no time during this call was Plaintiff advised this was a call from a debt collector or that this was an attempt to collect a debt or that any information obtained would be used for that purpose. During this initial communication in November 2009 the collector never provided any of the notices required by law, nor was any such notices provided within 5 days thereafter. In November 2009 the debt collector sent the plaintiff a letter attempting to get him to set up a payment plan and this letter did not contain any of the notices required by law. Shortly after receipt of the November 2009 letter, Plaintiff sent a letter disputing the debt to the debt collector, asking it to stop calling him since the debt was void due to the statute of limitations. Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways.
In January, 2010, the defendant agreed to forgive any debt owed by the Plaintiff and further agreed not to sell or transfer his account to any other person or entity. The debt collector requested that the three major credit reporting agencies remove their tradeline from the Plaintiff’s credit report. The matter was also resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.