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

A news site is reporting that Rent-A-Center settled a lawsuit which contained allegations that one or more Rent-A-Center employees kicked in a consumer’s door related to attempts to collect past-due payment(s).  The news site alleges that the plaintiff alleged that a 21-month old girl, standing behind the door, was injured.  “The defendants maintain their denial of liability and the settlement was a compromise to avoid the expense of trial, said their attorney Ralph Dublikar.”  Here is a link to the story -

http://www.cantonrep.com/stark/canton/x1522837707/Local-Rent-A-Center-settles-lawsuit-over-employees-actions