Dean Malone secured a final default judgment against Advanced Credit Recovery, Inc. for alleged inproper telephone debt collection tactics.  The lawsuit was filed in Amarillo (Potter County), Texas.  A conformed copy of the judgment is here -

Final Judgment

D CEO Magazine published “Debt Collectors Gone Wild” yesterday as a result of Dean Malone’s recent $1.7 million verdict in the Allen Jones case against Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC.  Mr. Malone was quoted several times in the story.  Here is a link -

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_CEO/2010/September/Debt_Collectors_Gone_Wild.aspx

Related articles by Zemanta

• Man Wins $1.5M Over Vulgar Debt Collection Calls (abcnews.go.com)
• Allen Jones: Jury Awards Man $1.5 Million After Debt Collector Left Harassing, Racist Voice Mails (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

News about last week’s 1.7 million dollar jury verdict obtained by Dean Malone and co-counsel has spread like wildfire.  Television stations, newspapers, radio stations, and blogs across the United States have covered the story.  I understand that media throughout Europe are also now covering the jury’s verdict.  Here is a link to one of the latest newspaper articles about the abusive debt collection trial -

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/95594769.html

T. Dean Malone and his co-counsel finished an approximate two-week jury trial yesterday against Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC (“ACCT”) and two of its previous employees.  The jury heard evidence of calls which included racial slurs, sexual comments, threats of violence, and profanity.  The jury found that ACCT and its prior debt collector employees violated the Texas Debt Collection Act, engaged in unreasonable collection efforts, and invaded our client’s right to privacy (by intruding on his seclusion).  The jury also determined that ACCT was negligent in hiring, supervising, training, and/or retaining a debt collection supervisor.

The jury provided $50,000.00 in mental anguish damages to our client and $143,000.00 in attorneys’ fees through trial.  The jury also provided $1,500,000.00 in additional/punitive damages against ACCT.

Mr. Malone, his co-counsel, and our client were interviewed yesterday for a Channel 8 news story.  Here is a link to the story (which ran during last night’s 10:00 p.m. news) -

http://www.wfaa.com/news/consumer/Vulgar-voicemails-force-debt-collector-to-pay-15M-95163714.html

Here is the video -

The court will hold a hearing to decide whether to grant a permanent injunction against one or all of the defendants.  The court will also consider a motion for judgment to be filed by our firm.  No amounts have been paid by any of the defendants toward amounts awarded by the jury.

Debt Collector National Enterprise Systems, Inc. reached a consent decree in a lawsuit brought against it by the Ohio Attorney General.  The attorney general had alleged that National Enterprise Systems, Inc. violated state consumer protection law and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Attorney General’s press release is here -

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/April-2010/Ohio-Debt-Collection-Firm-to-Pay-Consumers-for-Vio

National Enterprise Systems, Inc. was permanently enjoined from committing acts including the following:

• Communicating or threatening to communicate that a consumer owes a debt when communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A);
• Harassing or threatening to harass third parties in the attempts to get the consumer to pay the alleged debt, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A);
• Communicating with a consumer in the collection of a debt at any unusual time or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer, including inconvenient hours and/or at the consumer’s place of employment, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Communicating with a consumer in the collection of a debt after being notified 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, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Failing to cease collecting a debt or any disputed portion thereof upon written notification of dispute or written request for the name of the original creditor by the consumer, prior to the debt collector obtaining verification of the debt, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Using obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Attempting to collect an alleged debt by telephone without the meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity, except as provided by law, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt or any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Falsely representing or implying that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Using any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a debt by threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Falsely representing or implying to consumers that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any of the consumer’s property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the Defendant intends to take such action, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect debts by collection of any amount (including interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law, in violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A);
• Communicating that a consumer owes a debt when communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692b(2);
• Communicating with any person other than the consumer more than once unless requested to do so by such person or the Defendant reasonably believes that the earlier response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information, in violation the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692b(3);
• Communicating with a consumer in the collection of a debt at any unusual time or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(1);
• Communicating with a consumer in the collection of a debt at the consumer’s place of employment if the Defendant knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication, in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(3);
• Communicating with a person other than the consumer in the collection of a debt, except as provided in 15 U.S.C. 1692b, without the prior consent of the consumer, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b);
• Communicating with a consumer after being notified in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the Defendant to cease further communication with the consumer, except as allowed by law, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(c);
• Engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692d;
• Using any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e;
• Using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692f;  and
• Failing to cease collecting a debt or any disputed portion thereof upon written notification of dispute or written request for the name of the original creditor by the consumer, until the Defendant 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 names and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the Defendant, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b).

National Enterprise Systems, Inc. also agreed to pay over $200,000.00 in consumer restitution.  Here is a link to the entire consent decree (which should be completely reviewed to give context to the settlement) -

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/April-2010/Ohio-Debt-Collection-Firm-to-Pay-Consumers-for-Vio/NES_Settlement

We have posted several voicemail messages left by ACE Cash Express, Inc. (‘ACE”) in Texas.  We represent a Texas public school teacher from whom ACE was apparently attempting to collect a debt.  Here is a voicemail message left by ACE for the principal at the school at which our client teaches -

A Texas resident sued GC Services, L.P., a collection agency, for alleged improper consumer debt collection practices.  The plaintiff alleged that GC Services acted improperly when attempting to collect a debt by telephone.

The case was tried to a jury on March 16 and 17, 2010.  The jury, awarding a total of $121,000.00, found that GC Services violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  Here is a link to the entry of judgment and a completed (though redacted) jury verdict sheet -

Judgment Against GC Services, LP

Attorney General Greg Abbott, on behalf of the State of Texas, sued NCO Financial Systems, Inc. in 2008 for alleged improper collection tactics / practices.  The case was filed in the 193rd District Court in Dallas County, Texas.  NCO Financial Services, Inc. and the State of Texas reached an agreement regarding the suit, and the agreement was reflected in an Agreed Final Order of Confirmation of Approval of Assurance of Voluntary Compliance and a separate Assurance of Voluntary Compliance.  Those documents are here -

NCO Financial Services, Inc. Agreed Final Order and Assurance of Voluntary Compliance

The 18-page Assurance of Voluntary Compliance evidences NCO Financial Services, Inc.’s agreement to do and not to do a number of things.  NCO Financial Services, Inc. agreed, for a period of twelve months starting January 1, 2009, to monitor 25,000 essentially randomly-selected consumer credit debt collection phone calls placed by NCO Financial Services, Inc.  Personnel who had received at least fours hours of instruction regarding relevant policies and procedures would monitor and evaluate the calls for things including whether any of the following occurred:

• Disclosure of the existence of a debt or NCO’s third-party debt collector status to anyone other than the consumer
• Contacting a specific third party to skip trace more than once unless new information is documented in the collection system or the third party granted permission and said permission is recorded in the collection system
• Misrepresenting NCO’s status as a third-party debt collector, or NCO’s employee or agent identifying themselves as anything but a debt collector to a consumer
• A consumer is subjected to profanity, rudeness, or inappropriate threats
• Additional charges are added to an account not permitted by the Texas Debt Collection Act, or any agreement between the consumer and the creditor
• The consumer is contacted at work if the collector knows or has reason to known that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication at work
• A message is left for the consumer at another number other than the consumer’s home or business after the consumer has already been reached
• A consumer has been threatened with potential legal action or wage garnishment
• All written cease and desist requests were honored
• Any voice message for a return call is left, beyond anything other than the collector’s name, telephone number, and I.D. code
• A settlement offer that has already been accepted by the consumer has been or is being reneged upon

There are numerous other provisions in the agreement (see link above), and NCO Financial Systems, Inc. did not admit that it ever violated any law or committed any wrongdoing.  Does anyone have any additional information about the settlement or the status of the monitoring?  Feel free to post your comments.

We represent a woman in Texas regarding calls made by ACE Cash Express, Inc. related to attempts to collect an alleged debt.  Here are two voicemail messages left for her.  We have “beeped” out our client’s first name, her co-workers’ names, the “case” number, and ACE’s telephone number.  We believe that these calls were made from ACE’s office in Irving, Texas.

We currently represent approximately eighteen (18) consumers against ACE Cash Express, Inc. for claims related to ACE’s collection tactics.  We have seen a number of situations in which ACE threatens to call, or actually does call, a consumer’s supervisor and/or employer’s human resources department.  ACE also apparently frequently tells consumers that there is an “active case” against them, when apparently no civil or criminal case has been filed.  Here is a recording of a voicemail message left for one of our clients in or about February, 2010.  We have “bleeped” out certain identifying information.