kevincrick | Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC

Has American Collection Systems, Inc. Been Sued Before for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices That Were Allegedly in Violation of the FDCPA?

kevincrick — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:37:31 +0000

Yes. American Collection Systems, Inc (“American Collection Systems”) was sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:08-cv-03334-LDW-AKT. Allegedly, the plaintiff owed a consumer debt to a third-party creditor. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was assigned the plaintiff’s debt to collect. He alleged that he sent the defendant a letter that asked for verification of the debt and requested for the defendant to stop communications with him because he had sought out legal counsel. The plaintiff alleged that despite his request, the defendant still sent him collection letters and directly contacted him regarding debt collection related matters. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions violated the FDCPA because the defendant communicated with him after being told that he was represented by legal counsel. In another case, a federal lawsuit was filed against American Collection Systems as well as a part-owner of the company (also a debt collector) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Eastern Division. American Collection Systems was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:17-cv-02476. The plaintiff in this case alleged that he received a collection letter from one of the defendants for a supposed consumer debt. Allegedly, this letter that the plaintiff received claimed that he did not honor the agreement by failing to keep up with his payments for his debt and demanded that he pay back the remaining balance in whole. The plaintiff alleged that he was confused by this letter since he did not have an agreement with this defendant nor had he had any contact with this defendant in the past. The plaintiff then alleged that he made a call to this defendant and that a representative answered the phone. Allegedly, the employee who answered the phone did not reveal the name of the company and did not disclose to the plaintiff that the company was a debt collection company. The plaintiff alleged that the employee told him that he was sent the wrong letter but that he could give the plaintiff a 50% discount off his debt if he paid it at that moment. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that he asked the representative to provide the discount offer in writing and that after hearing his request, the representative became angry and started to shout at him. The plaintiff also alleged that the representative threatened to pursue further action against the plaintiff if he did not abide by the representative’s terms. The plaintiff alleged that he then hung up the phone because he was feeling harassed and threatened. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA due to these alleged actions: harassment; use of abusive language; use of deceptive representation; failure to disclose identity as a debt collector; and more. American Collection Systems and its part-owner who is also a debt collector were also sued in a federal class action case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in the Dallas Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:18-cv-01039-N. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants began to collect an alleged debt of his that arose from a defaulted student loan. The plaintiff alleged that one of the defendants mailed him a dunning letter, which is a letter that notifies consumers of an overdue debt. Allegedly, the letter the plaintiff received contained a phone number that consumers could call to ask any further questions. The plaintiff alleged that the phone number provided in the dunning letter did not match the phone number that the defendants used for their debt collection activities. The plaintiff alleged that the language used was misleading and deceptive. According to the plaintiff, the defendants’ alleged use of false representations and unfair means of collection constituted a violation of the FDCPA. Another federal lawsuit was filed against American Collection Systems in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Eastern Division. The company was sued for alleged FDCPA violations. The docket number for this case is Case No. 4:12-cv-00131-AGF. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was assigned to collect an alleged debt that she owed to a third-party creditor. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her cellphone and left a message for collection purposes. Allegedly, the message that was left did not inform the plaintiff of the name of the defendant’s company and did not disclose that the defendant was a debt collector. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions violated the FDCPA because that law states that prerecorded messages left by debt collectors must disclose the caller’s identity and inform the consumer that the communication is from a debt collector. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the Western Division, American Collection Systems was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:19-cv-02251-JGC. The plaintiff alleged that she received a collection letter from the defendant regarding an alleged debt that she owed to a creditor. The plaintiff alleged that the letter she received misstated her rights and responsibilities under the FDCPA. Allegedly, the letter stated that consumers must dispute the debt in writing even though the FDCPA allows for the dispute to be conducted in any form. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA because it used false representations and provided an inaccurate statement of a consumer’s rights. What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process? The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages. The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer as it would not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor. If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.

The post Has American Collection Systems, Inc. Been Sued Before for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices That Were Allegedly in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Was American Collection Systems, Inc. Sued For Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices That Were Allegedly in Violation of the FDCPA?

kevincrick — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:18:18 +0000

Yes. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Richmond Division, a federal lawsuit was filed against American Collection Systems, Inc. (“American Collection Systems”), a debt collector, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal law that aims to regulate the actions of debt collectors. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:12-cv-00428-REP. In this case, the plaintiff allegedly took out a loan from a loan company and paid off this loan in whole. The plaintiff alleged that American Collection Systems, the defendant, was employed by the lender and that they sent her a demand letter. The plaintiff alleged that in this letter, the lender claimed that she owed them an overdue amount and that she must contact the defendant for payment methods. According to the plaintiff, she allegedly called American Collection Systems the day after receiving the letter and disputed the debt to the representative on the phone who told her that the records showed that her debt remained unpaid. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the employee told her that she would have to pay the full amount in thirty days, or she would be taken to court. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she found her original payment receipt from the lender and sent the defendant a physical letter to dispute the debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA by using deceptive means to collect a debt that she did not owe, making misleading representations, acting unconscionably, and threatening to garnish her wages when it did not have the right to take such action. Another federal lawsuit was filed against American Collection Systems for alleged violations of the FDCPA. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The docket number for this case is 1:12-cv-02805-RRM-LB. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant sought to collect a debt related to an automobile loan. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her phone and left a message on her answering machine. The plaintiff alleged that in the voicemail, the defendant did not reveal the name of the company, announce the nature of the call, or tell her that the call was made from a debt collector. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant left a number that was registered to their company for her to return their call. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA because they did not disclose their identity in the call or identify themselves as a debt collector. American Collection Systems and its agents were also sued by two plaintiffs, a mother and a daughter, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for alleged violations of the FDCPA, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and invasion of privacy. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:12-cv-02908-TCB. Allegedly, the mother incurred a debt from a creditor which was transferred to the defendant for collection purposes. The daughter alleged that the defendant called her cellphone in order to speak with her mother. The daughter alleged that in the first conversation she had with the defendant, she informed them that her mother could not be reached at her cell phone number. The daughter then alleged that she asked for the defendant to stop communications with her. However, the daughter alleged that the defendant continued to call her and would sometimes even call her up to four times in a day. Additionally, the daughter alleged that in these phone calls, the defendant would often use aggressive language, say that she was lying about her identity, and mock her name. The daughter alleged that the defendant would not reveal their identity when asked and that they would also use pre-recorded messages to call her. Allegedly, the mother then contacted the defendant and spoke with an employee who demanded full payment of her debt. The mother alleged that she told the defendant that she could not pay her debt because she was on disability, and that upon hearing this, the employee laughed and ended their conversation. The defendant allegedly did not tell the mother that their communication was for debt collection purposes nor did it inform her of her rights. The plaintiffs alleged that because of the defendant’s actions, they both suffered actual damages and emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s failure to identify themselves; failure to send a validation notice; improper contact to third parties; use of unconscionable means, harassment, and abusive language; repeated phone calls and more are considered to be violations of the FDCPA. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a class action lawsuit was filed against American Collection Systems after it allegedly violated the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:13-cv-06095-SLT-JO. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent her multiple collection letters for an alleged debt that she incurred. The plaintiff alleged that the letters stated that credit card payments would be subject to a convenience fee. The plaintiff alleged that collecting a fee on a card payment was unlawful due to precedents set by previous cases. She alleged that this action was in violation of the FDCPA because it was a deceptive practice and would allow the defendant to collect an amount that was not authorized by the contract that created the debt. What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process? The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages. The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer as it would not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor. If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.

The post Was American Collection Systems, Inc. Sued For Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices That Were Allegedly in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Were Over 600,000 Honda and Acura Models Voluntarily Recalled for Allegedly Defective Impellers in Fuel Pumps?

kevincrick — Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:00:19 +0000

On March 30, 2021, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) announced that they were voluntarily recalling a total of 628,124 of their vehicles in the United States due to potentially faulty low-pressure fuel pumps that could possibly cause alleged engine problems. This number allegedly includes a portion of Acura vehicles as well, as the Acura brand is a luxury division that is owned by Honda. In this recall, Honda and Acura have allegedly determined that vehicles from almost all of their 2019 and 2020 models as well as a singular model of Honda’s CR-V from 2018 may have this alleged defect. The Acura models that are allegedly affected by the recall include the 2019 ILX, 2019-2020 MDX and MDX Hybrid, 2019-2020 RDX, and 2019-2020 TLX. For Honda, the recall allegedly affects vehicles from the manufacturer’s 2018-2019 CR-V, 2019 Accord Hybrid, 2019 Civic Coupe and Si Coupe, 2019 Civic Sedan and Si Sedan, 2019 Civic Type R, 2019 Fit, 2019 HR-V, 2019 Odyssey, 2019 Passport, 2019 Pilot, 2019 Ridgeline, 2019-2020 Accord, 2019-2020 Civic Hatchback, and 2019-2020 Insight lineups. The recall allegedly does not affect the Acura NSX or the fuel-cell and plug-in hybrid versions of the Honda Clarity. In April of 2021, Honda reported that the possible problem with the fuel pump has allegedly not caused any crashes or injuries. The recall centers around a potential alleged defect in the fuel pump’s impeller, which is the rotating part of the pump that draws and moves fuel. It is alleged that the impellers of the affected vehicles have been found to potentially be susceptible to cracks and breakage. This alleged potential problem is alleged to have been caused because the impellers may have been exposed to certain solvents during their manufacturing process. In regard to vehicles in general, if the impeller of a fuel pump breaks, it could potentially cause an entire pump to stop working. In turn, a fuel pump failure could potentially cause a vehicle’s engine to stall or lose power and thus possibly increase the chance of a car accident. If a driver sees that a warning light has turned on in their vehicle’s instrument cluster, this could possibly indicate that a problem with that vehicle’s fuel pump has occurred. Honda began notifying owners of the recalled vehicles via mail in late May 2021. Owners of these models can allegedly also check if their vehicles are affected by the recall by contacting Honda or Acura or by entering their VIN (vehicle identification number) into the manufacturers’ recall websites. To remedy this issue, the manufacturer allegedly declared that they would replace the potentially and allegedly defective fuel pumps free of charge. Additionally, if an owner of a vehicle has issues regarding a faulty vehicle, the owner can contact a consumer protection agency, the Office of the Attorney General in their respective state, and/or a consumer protection lawyer who is licensed to practice law in the state in which the consumer resides. Seeking professional legal assistance may help a consumer become familiar with their rights and may provide them with answers to questions they have regarding defective vehicles.

The post Were Over 600,000 Honda and Acura Models Voluntarily Recalled for Allegedly Defective Impellers in Fuel Pumps? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

What to Know if Your Car is Repossessed?

kevincrick — Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:07:18 +0000

What to Know if Your Car is Repossessed?

Many repossession companies have been sued for allegedly violating people’s rights during repossessions, including on tribal land. If a repossession company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), then pursuant to that federal statute, it would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, and have to cover their legal fees and any costs

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor, two repossession companies, and a repossession agent. The repossession companies and the agent were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Case No. 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB.

The plaintiff alleged that she took out a loan with the creditor in order to finance the purchase of her vehicle and that by doing so, she granted the creditor a security interest in her vehicle. She alleged that when she began to fall behind on payments, the creditor hired a repossession company who then subcontracted a second repossession company to repossess her vehicle. The plaintiff also alleged that she lived at her mother’s house at the time of the repossession, which was located on an Indian reservation. The plaintiff alleged that the tribal land was governed by its own laws and that according to the reservation’s ordinance, a secured party could only repossess collateral on the reservation if they had the debtor’s written consent or a judicial order.

The plaintiff alleged that in April 2015, the repossession company and its agent entered the reservation in order to conduct the repossession. She alleged that they went to her mother’s house and after finding the vehicle parked in the driveway, they unlawfully repossessed it. The plaintiff alleged that the next morning, she woke up and realized that her vehicle was missing. After, she alleged that she reported the missing vehicle to the reservation’s police department who informed her that the repossession company told them that the creditor had authorized the repossession. The plaintiff also alleged that the repossession company left a phone number for her to call with the police, and that she called this number many times in order to try to find out where the vehicle was and how she could reclaim it.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company did not provide her with the opportunity to recover her personal items, like medical supplies and birthday gifts, that were inside of the repossessed vehicle. Additionally, she alleged that as a result of the repossession, she was left without a vehicle and could not transport her nephew to his medical appointments. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession companies violated the FDCPA, and that the repossession of her vehicle was unlawful because the defendants did not have the present right to repossess the vehicle since it was located on the reservation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants unlawfully entered tribal land to conduct the repossession and did not abide by laws that governed the reservation, thus removing their right to repossession.

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Eastern Division, a class action lawsuit was filed against two repossession companies and a creditor. The repossession companies were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Illinois state law. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:15-cv-08163.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she bought a vehicle from a retailer and entered into an installment contract. The plaintiff alleged that the retailer then assigned the contract to a creditor who financed the purchase and who obtained a security interest in the vehicle. She alleged that after she started missing her payments, the creditor hired a repossession company who then hired another repossession company to conduct a repossession. The plaintiff alleged that her vehicle was repossessed on November 12, 2014 and that the defendants did not provide the required notice of the repossession to the police either before or after the repossession.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the creditor sent her three notices including a Notice of Right to Reinstate, a Notice of Plan to Sell the Property, and an affidavit. According to Illinois state law, a creditor must send a Notice of Right to Reinstate to a consumer within three business days of a repossession. However, the plaintiff alleged that the notice(s) she received was postmarked as November 26^th and that she did not physically receive them until December 1^st, which was after the three-day grace period.

The plaintiff also alleged that on the Notice of Right to Reinstate, the creditor indicated that she was owed $1,333.52 on her balance. However, she alleged that she did not owe this much money. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that on the pre-sale notice, the creditor stated that she owed $17,719.61 and that if she paid this amount back, she could reclaim her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that this was a false amount and was not what she truly owed on the agreement. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that these notices were confusing because she could not determine exactly how much she needed to pay in order to redeem the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the Notice to Reinstate indicated that she would have to pay $1,718.52, yet the pre-sale notice indicated that she would have to pay $18,104.81.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the affidavit of defense form she received did not provide a number for her to call. The plaintiff also alleged that she mailed back the affidavit to her creditor on December 15, 2014, which was less than 21 days after she received the form. She alleged that in Illinois, an affidavit has to be received by a lienholder less than 21 days after the date of mailing in order to stop the transfer of title and that if the affidavit is received in a timely manner, the lienholder has to apply to a court in order to determine possession rights. The plaintiff alleged that after she mailed the affidavit, she called the creditor in order to inquire about the status of her vehicle and was informed that the vehicle was sold on December 16, 2014. The plaintiff also alleged that the creditor told her that a deficiency balance remained and that interest continued to accrue on the amount. Furthermore, she alleged that she was never told how or where she could retrieve her personal items that were left inside of the repossessed vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession companies violated the FDCPA during the repossession because they did not have the legal right to repossess her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that by failing to notify the police of the repossession, the repossession companies’ right to repossession was removed and their behavior constituted an unfair debt collection practice.

What constitutes a violation of my rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to follow the laws of the state that the consumer lives in during the repossession process. If a creditor hires any third-party repossession companies, they must abide by the state’s respective repossession laws and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that provides legal protection to consumers against unlawful debt collection practices. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to first send the consumer a pre-repossession notice in order to lawfully repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, a repossession company is not allowed to breach the peace. A breach of the peace can include using physical force or violence, damaging property, and continuing with a repossession after verbal objections have been made; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, when conducting a repossession, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto an individual’s property without their permission. Repossession companies also are not allowed to repossess the wrong vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If the vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, the consumer may not have to pay the deficiency balance on their loan. If a repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages and cover their legal fees and any costs.

The post What to Know if Your Car is Repossessed? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Have repossession companies been sued before for breaching the peace?

kevincrick — Fri, 01 Oct 2021 13:05:37 +0000

Yes. There have been lawsuits filed against repossession companies for violating people’s rights by breaching the peace during repossessions. If a repossession company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), then pursuant to that federal statute, it would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover their legal fees and any court costs.

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the Milwaukee Division, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and two repossession companies. The repossession companies were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01536-WED.

The plaintiffs in this case were a couple who alleged that they financed a vehicle’s purchase with a creditor and began to fall behind on their payments in 2018. The plaintiffs alleged that on the day of the repossession in September 2018, they woke up in the middle of the night to see repossession agents attempting to take their vehicle. They alleged that they saw their neighbors protesting on behalf of them, stating to the agents that they could not take the vehicle and that they must wait for the plaintiffs to come outside. The plaintiffs alleged that they agreed with their neighbors and that they were joining the protest when the repossession company repossessed their vehicle.

The plaintiffs alleged that the repossession companies violated the FDCPA because they did not have the legal right to take the vehicle since the plaintiffs protested the action. The plaintiffs also alleged that the repossession companies breached the peace since they continued with the repossession after verbal protests.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and two repossession companies. The repossession companies were sued for alleged FDCPA violations and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:11-cv-02229-JNE-LIB.

In this case, the plaintiffs were a couple who entered into a credit transaction in order to purchase a camper vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that based on the contract, they were required to make monthly payments but that they had made multiple late payments over the course of the loan which were accepted by their creditor. The plaintiffs also alleged that in 2007, they filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection and that this included the financing agreement for their camper vehicle. They alleged that during their bankruptcy proceedings, they reaffirmed the camper’s agreement and continued to make monthly payments to their creditor. The plaintiffs alleged that in January 2009, their petition was dismissed and that they continued on with their monthly payments. They then alleged that in March 2011, they authorized a check to be issued for that month’s payment. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that in April 2011, their creditor assigned their interest in the contract to another creditor (which was also a defendant in the case). The plaintiffs alleged that they were not given notice of this transfer nor were they told to make their payments to the new creditor.

The plaintiffs alleged that they sent their payment for that month to the original creditor who forwarded it to the new creditor. They alleged that this payment was late but that the new creditor accepted it nonetheless without enforcing its security interest or the terms of the contract. The plaintiffs also alleged that they made the next month’s payment on time and were current on their obligations at the time of the repossession.

The plaintiffs alleged that in June 2011, the new creditor contracted a repossession company, which then hired a second repossession company to repossess the camper. The plaintiffs alleged that even though they made repeated late payments that were regularly accepted by the creditor, they were not issued a warning notice regarding compliance to the agreement’s terms and a “right to cure” date. In Minnesota, this letter is known as a Cobb notice and a creditor must provide this notice to a consumer if they had previously accepted late payments, in order for a repossession to legally occur.

The plaintiffs alleged that on the day of the repossession, they parked their camper at a campground and that when they were away, a repossession agent seized the camper. They alleged that the agent damaged both the camper and the goods inside of the camper during the repossession. After, the plaintiffs alleged that they were informed of the repossession after an employee of the repossession company called them to tell them that they could pick up their personal items.

The plaintiffs alleged that the repossession of their camper was in violation of the FDCPA because the repossession companies did not have a present right to repossess the vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that they were up to date on their payments and were not in default and that they were not provided with a Cobb notice after their late payments were accepted by the creditor.

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, a federal lawsuit was filed against a repossession company for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Wisconsin Consumer Act, as well as against a creditor for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00717-WMC.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that he financed the purchase of a vehicle with the creditor for personal use. He alleged that he fell behind on his payments in 2018 and that his creditor then hired a repossession company to repossess his vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that in August 2018, he was sitting in his vehicle – which was parked in a relative’s driveway – when an employee from the repossession company blocked him in the driveway. He alleged that the repossession agent demanded to repossess his vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that he told the repossession agent to stop the repossession but that despite his verbal protest, the repossession agent continued with the repossession process. The plaintiff then alleged that the employee of the repossession company threatened to call the police, in order to coerce the plaintiff into giving up his car. He alleged that after the police arrived and spoke to the repossession agent, he was allowed to leave with his vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the repossession company violated the FDCPA because the agent breached the peace by continuing the repossession even after the plaintiff made a verbal protest. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the repossession agent’s use of the police to assist in the repossession was also unlawful.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to comply with the laws of the state that a consumer resides in during the repossession process. Any third-party repossession companies that are hired by the lender of a consumer’s auto loan must follow not only the consumer’s state’s respective state-specific repossession laws but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that protects consumers from unlawful debt collectors. Prior to a repossession, and depending on the state, a creditor may have to provide the consumer with a pre-repossession notice before it can legally repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, the repossession company does not have the right to breach the peace. Examples of a breach of the peace include using physical force, being violent, damaging a consumer’s property, and continuing with a repossession after the consumer verbally objects to it; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto a consumer’s property without the consumer’s permission to conduct a repossession on their property. It is also illegal for a repossession company to repossess the incorrect vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, such as a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If a consumer’s vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, it is possible that the consumer would not have to pay any deficiency balance on their loan. If the repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover their legal fees and any court costs.

The post Have repossession companies been sued before for breaching the peace? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Have repossession companies been sued before for violating people’s rights?

kevincrick — Mon, 20 Sep 2021 16:26:43 +0000

Yes. There have been many lawsuits filed against repossession companies for violating people’s rights during repossessions. If a repossession company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), then pursuant to that federal statute, it would have to pay a consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover the consumer’s legal fees and any court costs.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a class action lawsuit was filed against a creditor, a repossession company, and multiple repossession agents. The repossession company and agents were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she took out a loan with the creditor in order to purchase a vehicle. She alleged that the creditor had a security interest in the vehicle and that she was required to make monthly payments for the loan. She also alleged that over the course of the loan, she made several late and partial payments that her creditor had accepted. In the state of Minnesota, if a creditor has accepted late and partial payments from a debtor, the creditor must provide a debtor with a Cobb notice in order to conduct a lawful repossession. The notice informs debtors that they must strictly abide by the terms of the loan contract. The plaintiff alleged that her creditor never sent her a Cobb notice after accepting her late payments. She also alleged that in March 2015, she made another overdue payment which was again accepted by her creditor. She alleged that after making this payment, she began to fall behind on her monthly payments again.

The plaintiff alleged that her creditor hired a repossession company in order to repossess her vehicle. She alleged that in April 2015, a repossession agent entered her private property in order to gain access to her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that once she saw him in her driveway, she came outside to ask him why he was there. The plaintiff alleged that the agent informed her that he was planning to repossess her vehicle and that she could not stop him because she had overdue payments. She then alleged that she asked the agent how much she could pay in order to keep her vehicle, to which the defendant replied that the repossession would occur regardless of how much she could pay. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she called her creditor in order to gain information about the situation. She alleged that while this call occurred, the repossession agent began to load her vehicle onto his tow truck and that shortly afterward, the repossession agent drove away with her vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that a few days later, she spoke with an employee of her creditor who informed her that she would be able to continue making her monthly payments if she paid off the overdue balance that remained on her account. She also alleged that she asked the employee why they never sent her a Cobb notice or another warning letter to which the employee replied that the creditor was not legally required to provide any letters before the occurrence of a repossession. The plaintiff alleged that later in the day, she spoke with another representative of the creditor. She alleged that she also asked this second representative whether or not a Cobb notice was sent to her. The plaintiff alleged that the representative told her that neither a Cobb letter nor a “right to cure” letter was ever sent to her.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company and its agents committed an unlawful repossession of her vehicle because they did not have a present right to repossess her property. She alleged that because her creditor never provided her with a Cobb notice after accepting late payments, the repossession company did not have the legal right to conduct a repossession.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, another federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and a repossession company. The repossession company was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and both defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Case No. 0:17-cv-00934-JRT-HB.

The plaintiff alleged that prior to her purchase of the vehicle, a third-party consumer entered into an agreement with a creditor for the vehicle’s purchase. She alleged that this vehicle was then purchased by another dealer who was given a clear title to the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that she purchased her vehicle from this dealer and entered into a loan agreement in order to finance the purchase. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the repossession, all of her monthly payments had been paid on time, and she was up to date on the account.

The plaintiff alleged that in February 2017, the creditor issued a repossession order for her vehicle and that it contracted a repossession company in order to conduct the repossession. She alleged that on the day of the repossession, she parked her vehicle on the third floor of her workplace’s parking ramp. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company unlawfully repossessed her vehicle from where it was parked. She alleged that after she finished work, she walked to the parking area to find her vehicle missing. The plaintiff alleged that she called the police who informed her that her vehicle had been repossessed.

The plaintiff alleged that she contacted the dealer after speaking with the police, and that the dealer told her that they did not issue a repossession order and that all of her payments were made on time. She alleged that she then called the repossession company to determine what the reasoning was behind the repossession but that the company told her that she needed to contact her lender.

She then alleged that the repossession company told her that the original creditor of the vehicle was the lienholder and that they had issued the repossession order. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that she and her current lender called the repossession company who told them that they needed to resolve the situation with the original lender. The plaintiff alleged that the next day, her current lender spoke with the original lender and finally determined that the repossession was wrongfully committed. The plaintiff alleged that her vehicle was returned the same day. She also alleged that she contacted the original creditor in order to seek reimbursement, but that they never responded to her.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company wrongfully repossessed her vehicle because they used unfair or unconscionable means during the repossession. She also alleged that they had no present legal right to repossess her vehicle.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the repossession process?

The post Have repossession companies been sued before for violating people’s rights? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.