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.

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.

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.

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.

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 violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:10-cv-02046-RHK-FLN.

The plaintiff alleged that in 2007, he entered into a credit agreement with the creditor in order to finance the purchase of his vehicle. He then alleged that he began to fall behind on his payments in December 2009. The plaintiff alleged that after missing his due dates for payments, the creditor allowed him to make late and partial payments for the loan and accepted two of his payments in the next month.

The plaintiff alleged that in February 2010, the creditor hired a repossession company to repossess his vehicle. He alleged that this first repossession company then subcontracted the repossession to a second repossession company. The plaintiff alleged that despite accepting his late payments, the creditor did not send him what is called a Cobb notice. In Minnesota, if a creditor has accepted a debtor’s late or partial payments in the past, they have to provide the consumer with a Cobb notice before they are legally allowed to repossess a vehicle. This notice informs the consumer that they cannot make more late payments, provides them with a date to cure the overdue balance, and reaffirms that there needs to be compliance with the terms of the loan agreement.

The plaintiff alleged that in February 2010, he was woken up by his neighbor who informed him that a tow truck was taking his vehicle from its spot in a secured garage. He then alleged that he followed the repossession agent to the side of a road where an argument occurred between the plaintiff and the agent. The plaintiff alleged that the police soon arrived at the scene and that the repossession agent lied to the police officers by claiming that the repossession agent was authorized to enter the parking garage by the property manager and therefore did not trespass or breach the peace. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were never given any permission to enter the garage and that the garage had clear “No Trespassing” signs attached to the property for the defendants to see. He then alleged that the repossession agent towed away his vehicle and completed the repossession.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession was unlawful because the defendants did not have the right to conduct the repossession since the creditor never provided him with a Cobb notice. He also alleged that the repossession breached the peace, and that the agent trespassed on private property. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the actions of the repossession companies were in violation of the FDCPA.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, another federal lawsuit was filed against a repossession company and two creditors. The repossession company was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-00441-JRT-FLN.

The plaintiff alleged that in October 2013, she purchased a vehicle from one of the defendants. She alleged that after receiving her first billing statement from a creditor in regard to the loan financing for the vehicle, she signed up for the creditor’s website’s auto-payment service. However, the plaintiff alleged that the number for her bank account was unknowingly listed incorrectly so two of her subsequent payments were not posted.

The plaintiff alleged that in December 2013, an agent who was believed to be from the repossession company arrived at the plaintiff’s workplace and informed her that he was going to take her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that since she was unaware that her payments did not go through, she asked the agent why he needed to take the vehicle, to which the agent responded that he did not know the reason for the repossession. The plaintiff then alleged that the vehicle was with her daughter and not in her possession. She alleged that the repossession agent began to threaten her and say that he would call the police if she did not give the car to him. The plaintiff alleged that even though she tried to reason with the agent, he continued with his threats and eventually told her that he would come back to her workplace or house until he received the vehicle. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she called her creditor in order to find out why the vehicle was being repossessed. She alleged that no one answered the phone so she just paid off the balances on the billing statements that she missed, which were accepted by the creditor.

The plaintiff alleged that the next day, she called the creditor in order to try to ensure that the situation would be fully resolved but that the representative she spoke with could not answer her questions. She also alleged that she called and left a message with the company where she had initially found the vehicle and applied for financing. The plaintiff then alleged that her daughter called her to inform her that a repossession agent was at their house making threats and demanding the vehicle. She alleged that the agent left their house after making more threats.

The plaintiff alleged that an employee from the initial company returned her call and informed her that she would only be able to keep her vehicle if she financed the loan with another creditor and paid additional fees. She alleged that the employee promised not to repossess the vehicle after she told him that she could not afford to pay those fees. The Plaintiff alleged that despite this promise, and despite the fact that she had already made the payments on the vehicle that just needed to be processed, her vehicle was repossessed the following day.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that when she called the same employee the next morning, he told her that she would need to pay the repossession fees in order to recover her vehicle. The plaintiff then alleged that she called her creditor who was unable to help her with the return of the vehicle. The plaintiff also alleged that the creditor still processed her payments even though it had already repossessed her vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company violated the FDCPA because it did not have the right to repossess her vehicle since the auto loan’s payment obligations were satisfied. Additionally, she alleged that the repossession company breached the peace during the repossession due to its use of threats, intimidation, and coercion.

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 repossessing a vehicle without first sending a Cobb notice when they were supposed to have sent one first? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor, a repossession company, and a repossession agent. The repossession company and its agent were sued for an alleged violation of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-00173-ADM-FLN.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she entered into a loan agreement and financed the purchase of her vehicle with the creditor. She alleged that she made a number of late and partial payments throughout the lifetime of the loan, which the creditor accepted. The plaintiff then alleged that in the summer of 2013, she fell behind on her final payments. She alleged that in October 2013, her creditor mailed her a letter which informed her of the default and her right to cure the default, but that she was unable to make the payments before the due date.

The plaintiff alleged that in November 2013, as she was leaving her house, she noticed that her garage door was open and that the light was on. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession agent opened and entered her garage in order to identify her vehicle. She alleged that as she was backing out of her driveway in her vehicle, she noticed that a car was blocking her driveway. The plaintiff alleged that she left her vehicle to approach the car but upon seeing the repossession agent exit the car and walk towards her, she returned to her vehicle and closed the door. She then alleged that the repossession agent entered into the back seat of her vehicle and stated that he was there to repossess her vehicle. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she told the agent that she would not give him the vehicle.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that as she tried to drive the vehicle back into the garage, the agent told her that he would call the police and claim that she was kidnapping him. The plaintiff alleged that upon hearing this, she stopped the vehicle, exited, and told the agent to leave the vehicle. She alleged that the repossession agent refused to exit the vehicle and that he eventually called 911 to request for the police to come to the scene. She also alleged that he called his dispatcher and requested for a tow truck to take the vehicle away. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession agent then called the police again to cancel his request but that she insisted for the police to come.

The plaintiff alleged that after a police officer arrived, she explained the situation to him and spoke with the repossession agent’s dispatcher. She alleged that the dispatcher informed her of the repossession company’s name and told her that the agent would follow proper repossession procedure in the future. Additionally the plaintiff alleged that the police officer told her that he could not interfere with the dispute because it was a civil matter. She alleged that shortly afterward, the repossession agent’s tow truck arrived and towed away her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the tow truck and police car obstructed the street and that many of her neighbors were watching over the course of the incident. The plaintiff alleged that because of the incident, she suffered a lot of emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation.

The plaintiff alleged that she called her creditor the next morning but that she was unable to get help because the office was closed for the weekend. The plaintiff also alleged that since she was left without having a means of transportation, she had to leave her children with her ex-husband for the weekend. She then alleged that she spoke with an employee of the creditor on the following Monday in order to discuss her account. She alleged that the employee told her that she would have to pay her full account balance plus repossession fees in order to receive her car back. She also alleged that the employee informed her that there was no way for her to receive the vehicle back immediately but that a “hold” would be placed on her account in order to prevent the vehicle from being auctioned off. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she called the repossession company who told her that it still retained the vehicle and that there were also repossession fees that she had to pay to them. She alleged that as a result of the illegal repossession, she suffered monetary loss and needed to seek counseling.

The plaintiff alleged that her vehicle’s repossession was unlawful because the repossession company did not have the right to take the vehicle because she told the agent that she would not allow him to take the vehicle and had asked him to leave her property. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants breached the peace during the repossession, and that the repossession agent illegally trespassed onto her property and used threats against her.

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, a federal lawsuit was filed against a repossession company for violations of the FDCPA and the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00130-WMC.

The plaintiff alleged that he purchased a vehicle and financed its purchase with a non-party creditor who had a lien on the vehicle. He alleged that he fell behind on his loan payments in 2019 and that the creditor contracted with a repossession company in order to have a repossession conducted. The plaintiff then alleged that in January 2020, the repossession company went to his house in order to repossess the vehicle. He alleged that when he realized what was happening, he approached the repossession agent in order to protest the repossession. The plaintiff alleged that despite his verbal protests, the repossession agent still took his vehicle away.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession of his vehicle was unlawful because the repossession company breached the peace. He alleged that the defendant did not have a legal right to repossess his vehicle because he verbally protested the repossession.

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 continuing to repossess a vehicle despite having already been told to stop? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

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.

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?

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 violating people’s rights? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Creditors such as e-commerce companies, banks, credit card companies, etc., as well as third-party debt collection companies and telemarketers often will call, text or fax consumers without having prior express consent from the consumer for them to be able to do so. They will often call consumers without the consumers’ permission.

These companies cannot contact you without first having obtained your prior express consent.

There is a federal statute passed by U.S. Congress in 1991 and signed into law that same year by President George H.W. Bush, known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (TCPA). The TCPA protects the rights of people who are receiving unwanted calls, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, texts, or faxes by companies using automatic telephone dialing machines.

What If They Will Not Stop?

So, if you tell a company, orally or in writing, to stop calling, texting or faxing you, but the company still keeps doing so, it could mean that the offending company owes you $500 per every call, text, artificial or prerecorded voice message, or fax made or sent after you told them to stop. If they are calling, texting or faxing you while looking for the wrong consumer, you may not even have to tell them to stop, and they could owe you $500 per call, text or fax starting from the second communication the company makes to you.

If a court believes that the company acted in a willful and knowing manner, it could entitle you to three times the normal amount per unwanted call, text, or fax, so, $1,500 per unwanted call, text or fax.

Even if you do not owe the company any money and are the wrong person that they are looking for, or are not on the federal Do-Not-Call List, if the company is calling you without your express consent, or after you have told it not to, it can owe you up to $500 to $1,500 per unwanted call. Often times, law firms will file class actions against companies for such violations of the law.

Questions?

If you are getting unwanted calls, text messages or faxes, please contact Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC, as soon as possible at 844-893-1006 or fill out our contact form, so that our law firm can do quick, free review of your story to see if your rights were violated and if you may be entitled to monetary damages.

We would love to try to assist you to stop the unwanted harassing calls, texts, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, and/or faxes, and to try to help you get financial compensation.

The post Illegal Calls And Texts By Debt Collectors first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

TransUnion’s actions were allegedly in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”).  Inaccurate credit reporting can harm a consumer’s ability to get a loan, and it can also harm the interest rates that they do qualify for in regard to loans they are able to obtain.  It can even affect an individual consumer’s employment prospects.  Therefore, it is very important that a consumer’s credit information is collected, reported, and shared accurately.  Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by a defendant can provide consumers with statutory damages and actual damages. It can also entitle consumers to have their attorney’s fees and court costs paid for as well.

What is the FCRA?

The FCRA is a federal consumer protection statute which regulates consumers’ access to their credit reports.  It regulates how their credit information is collected by credit reporting agencies.  It also makes the agencies ensure that the information that they collect and distribute is a fair and accurate summary of an individual consumer’s credit history.  The FCRA was enacted in 1970, and the policy reasons behind enacting this statute were to make sure that the personal information in the files of consumers that is within credit reporting agencies is fair, accurate, and private.  The FCRA has been amended twice since it was enacted.  All credit bureaus have to follow the FCRA as it governs how they can collect and share information about individual consumers.

The FCRA protects consumers from having misinformation used against them.  It outlines specific guidelines and rules in regard to the methods that credit reporting agencies can utilize in order to collect information, and also in order to verify information.  The FCRA also outlines the reasons for which the credit reporting agencies can release information about a consumer.  Pursuant to the FCRA, consumers have certain rights.  One of these includes having free access to their respective credit reports.

Are Consumers Entitled to Have Copies of their Credit Report(s)?

Consumers are entitled by law to one free credit report every twelve months, from each one of the three major credit bureaus; Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax.  The FCRA is primarily aimed at Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion.  This is because Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax are the three major credit reporting agencies, and there is a widespread use of the information that those three credit bureaus collect and sell.  Credit reports can be requested at an official government-authorized website: AnnualCreditReport.com.  They can be requested, however, in other locations as well, but that website would provide them to consumers for free once a year.  Consumers have the right to a free copy of their credit report within 15 days of requesting it.  Consumers have a unique credit score with each credit reporting agency.  They must have proper identification in order to obtain their credit report.

If a business has taken adverse action against a consumer because of information in their credit report, such as denying their application or charging a higher interest rate, then the credit bureaus have to give them a free copy of their credit report. The three major credit bureaus, Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax would also have to give a consumer a copy of their credit report for free if they are unemployed and are planning to look for a job within the next 60 days, and also if they are on welfare.  The three major credit bureaus would also have to give a consumer a free credit report if their credit report has inaccurate information in it emanating from identity theft and if they have been the victim of identity theft.

The credit bureaus would still have to provide consumers with their credit reports at any other time, but they can decide to charge the consumers for it.  A consumer would always have to provide personal, identifying information in order to attain a credit report, so that a credit reporting agency like Experian, TransUnion, or Equifax can confirm that they are definitely the person requesting the credit report before it is released.  This is a measure that is taken to ensure the safety of consumers’ credit information. This measure can aid in preventing situations where credit information is released to the wrong person, which, for example, can help to prevent identity theft and other problematic situations.

Consumers Have the Right to Have Their Credit Information Reported Accurately

Pursuant to the FCRA, consumers have a right to verify the accuracy of their credit report if they need it for employment purposes.  They also have a right to dispute information in their credit report that they believe and know is inaccurate and is not complete in general.  They have the right to have the credit bureaus correct any information in their credit report that is not complete, and that is inaccurate.  If the inaccurate information cannot be verified by the credit bureau, then the credit bureau has a responsibility to remove it.  Consumers also have the right to be notified if information in their file has been used negatively against them after they have applied for credit, as well as after they have applied for other transactions to happen.  If a consumer cannot get information corrected on the consumer’s credit report, it is their right to be able to have a statement added to their credit file that explains the situation.

Consumers also, pursuant to the FCRA, have the right to have negative and/or outdated information removed from their credit report.  Outdated and negative information would have to be removed from the consumer’s credit report, in most situations, after 7 years of it being reported on their credit report.  If the negative and/or outdated information is in regard to a bankruptcy, then it must be removed after 10 years of being on the consumer’s credit report.  If the consumer cannot get outdated information removed from their credit report, the consumer can submit a statement to be added to their credit file that explains the situation for anyone who might be allowed look at the consumer’s credit report.  Information regarding a criminal record can remain indefinitely on a person’s credit report.

Businesses can check consumers’ credit reports for multiple reasons.  Two of those reasons can be for the business to decide whether or not to give a loan to an individual consumer, or for the business to decide whether or not to sell insurance to an individual consumer.  For these reasons, and others, what is in the consumer’s credit file must be fair, private, and accurate.  Credit information of respective consumers must be shared and collected accurately pursuant to the FCRA.

How the Credit Bureaus Must Respond Regarding Credit Report Disputes

If an individual consumer files a dispute with a credit bureau, and the credit bureau does not respond to their request in a satisfactory and proper manner within 30 days, that could be a violation under the FCRA.  The credit bureau could then owe the consumer damages pursuant to the FCRA.  The credit bureaus have a duty to respond to the consumer’s dispute within a timely manner, and the credit bureaus also must do a reasonable investigation.

If a credit bureau does not remove outdated or inaccurate information that is being improperly collected and shared by the credit bureau, within 30 days in response to a dispute, and a consumer has given them reason to know that the information that is being collected and shared is outdated and/or inaccurate and/or has given them the evidence to display that, then the consumer can sue the credit reporting agency for damages pursuant to the FCRA.  The consumer can also, for the same reason, sue the business that originally reported and then verified the inaccurate or outdated information to the credit bureau when the credit bureau was doing its investigation.  Therefore, businesses that are reporting credit information to credit reporting agencies must ensure that they are reporting information accurately, and that they are responding to these investigations properly and truthfully.

Regarding the Sharing and Collecting of Credit Report Information

Two federal agencies that oversee and enforce provisions of the FCRA are the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).  Different States have their own respective laws regarding credit reporting.  The three major credit reporting bureaus, and other smaller ones and other specialized companies, collect and sell information regarding the credit scores of individual consumers.  The collecting and selling of information regarding the credit scores of individual consumers can affect the interest rate that a consumer would have to pay on a loan, and it can also affect whether or not the consumer gets approved for a loan or for a credit card.  So, it is important that an individual consumer’s credit information is reported accurately.  The information in a consumer’s credit report is used to compute their credit score.

The FCRA outlines what type of data and information that a credit bureau like Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax is allowed to collect.  This can be information like the bill payment history of a consumer, current debts, past loans, employment information, whether the consumer has filed for bankruptcy before, whether the consumer has an arrest record, what the consumer’s past and present addresses are, and if the consumer is behind on child support.

Pursuant to the FCRA, access to a consumer’s credit report is only allowed under certain circumstances.  Generally, a mortgage lender, or a credit card provider, or a loan financer, or a vehicle loan provider, or a landlord, or an insurance company can only request a credit report when one of those loans or cards or policies or rental applications is applied for by the consumer.  The government can request the credit report of an individual person in response to a federal grand jury subpoena, or a court order, or if the person is applying for a specific type of license that is government-issued.  Employers can request the credit report for a job applicant, but only if the job applicant has already given their express permission for them to do so.  Employers who are in the trucking industry generally are not required to have attained the written consent of a job applicant before requesting the credit report of a job applicant.  Consumers’ medical information remains private, as consumers are protected from having their medical information disclosed in their credit report.  Creditors are prohibited from obtaining or using medical information when they are making decisions in regard to credit.

The consumer has to be the one who initiates the transaction in almost all circumstances, or they would have to in almost all circumstances be the one to have agreed in writing for the report to be released before the credit bureau can release it. The FCRA therefore restricts who can see a consumer’s credit file and for what purposes.  The purpose must be a permissible one. For example, a business can request to see a consumer’s credit report if they want to grant the consumer credit after they have submitted an application – this would be a permissible purpose.  The purpose has to be for a legitimate need, and Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax must have that solidified before allowing anyone access to a consumer’s credit report.  The approximately 50 different companies that self-identify as consumer reporting agencies must have that solidified as well.  This is because the FCRA’s rules also apply to all of them. A consumer also has the right to know who has requested to look at their credit report in the last year.  For employment purposes, a consumer has the right to know who has requested to look at their credit report in the past two years.

Regarding Information Furnishers

As mentioned, the FCRA’s rules can also apply to the businesses which furnish and provide information to the credit bureaus.  These businesses are also known as information furnishers.  The legal obligations of information furnishers can include, but are not limited to, having to report accurate information.  Any information that is reported by them cannot be inaccurate.  The information furnishers must also promptly update and correct any inaccurate information that they have previously provided to any of the credit bureaus.  They cannot refuse to do so.

Information furnishers have to tell consumers about any credit information that is negative that the information furnishers reported to any of the credit bureaus within thirty (30) days.  Consumers also have the right to have information furnishers tell them about any credit information that is negative that the information furnishers are simply planning to submit to any of the credit bureaus within thirty (30) days.  Information furnishers can notify consumers that they have submitted, or plan to submit, negative information to a credit reporting agency via things such as a billing statement or a notice of default.

The information furnishers also have to let the credit bureaus know when a consumer has voluntarily chosen to close an account of theirs.  The information furnishers must not report accounts that a consumer has previously reported was the result of identity theft.  Information furnishers must have procedures in place in order for them to respond to any notices of identity theft that the credit bureaus like Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion send to them.  Businesses are not allowed to publish consumers’ full credit card numbers on receipts.  The FCRA allows consumers to protect their Social Security numbers by having it truncated on their credit reports so that the whole social security number is not visible.

Regarding Disputing Inaccurate Information on a Consumer’s Credit Report

Consumers have the right to dispute any information on their credit report that is inaccurate.  They can directly dispute any information on the credit report that is inaccurate, in writing.  The creditor has to notify the credit bureaus of a consumer’s dispute after the creditor receives it.  The creditor cannot continue reporting the inaccurate information until it has fully investigated the consumer’s dispute.  To do otherwise would be a violation of the FCRA and the business could then owe damages to the consumer.  A business does not have to report information to the credit bureaus as there is no legal requirement that any business has to do so.  However, if a business chooses to report information to the credit bureaus, then they must follow the rules set forth under the FCRA.

The FCRA requires that businesses let consumers know when they have been turned down for credit opportunities, insurance, employment, and so forth, because of information that is in their credit reports, as mentioned.  The FCRA also requires that businesses provide consumers with the name, address, and phone number of the credit bureau that supplied the report to them that was used in the decision by the business to turn the consumer down for a credit opportunity.

Regarding Pre-Screened Offers and Security Freezes

The three major credit reporting agencies – Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax – also have to give the consumer the chance to opt-out of prescreened credit offers and to opt-out of insurance offers.  Prescreened offers for credit and insurance that were unsolicited have to include a toll-free telephone number that the consumer can call if the consumer chooses to remove the consumer’s name and address from the lists that those prescreened offers were based on.  This is what is called ‘opting out’, and a consumer can ‘opt-out’ with the nationwide credit bureaus by calling the following phone number, which is 1-888-5-OPTOUT (which is 1-888-567-8688).

Consumers can obtain a security freeze and have it placed on their credit report.  This freeze prevents a consumer reporting agency, such as TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian, from releasing to others any information in a consumer’s credit report without first obtaining their express consent and authorization.  That way, credit, loans, and services cannot be approved in a consumer’s name without first having their express consent.  Having a security freeze in place can potentially delay, prohibit, or interfere with the timely approval of a subsequent request or application made regarding a new loan, credit, mortgage, and so on.

Security freezes do not apply to people or entities or their affiliates or collection agencies that are acting on those people or entities’ behalf that a consumer already has an account with, and who are requesting information in a consumer’s credit report so that they can review the account or collect on it.  Part of what is entailed in reviewing an account includes, but is not limited to monitoring the account, undertaking account maintenance-related activities, increasing the credit line, and enhancing and upgrading the account.

Consumers could also have an initial or extended fraud alert put on their credit file in the alternative to obtaining and placing a security freeze on their credit report, and there is no cost for this.  These alerts can be extremely helpful.  Initial fraud alerts last for one year.  A new business seeing this has to take steps to verify the consumer’s identity before they extend any new credit opportunities.  Extended fraud alerts are available to all victims of identity theft, and they last for 7 years.

Options for Victimized Consumers

Consumers have the right to sue and seek damages from credit bureaus, users of consumer reports, and information furnishers that act in violation of the FCRA. Additionally, many states have their own consumer reporting laws and it is possible that consumers have more rights under state law. If a consumer believes that their rights have been violated under the FCRA, they should contact a law firm or a consumer protection attorney who is licensed in the state that they reside in. It is important for a consumer to have an accurate reporting of their credit history. Professional legal assistance can provide consumers with guidance, help them seek restitution, and assist them in determining the answers to any questions that they may have in regard to the FCRA.

The post Was TransUnion, LLC Sued for Alleged Inaccurate Credit Reporting? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.