The consumer hopes to bring to the Court's attention the following allegations, among others:
1) Collectcorp falsely threatened that the consumer's alleged credit card company was imminently going to sue the consumer.
2) Collectcorp falsely overstated the amount of money the consumer allegedly owed.
3) Collectcorp falsely threatened that the consumer's wages would be garnished and that a "lien" would be placed against her home.
4) Collectcorp falsely misrepresented the payment arrangements the consumer could agree.
5) Collectcorp solicited postdated checks from the consumer so that it could threaten criminal charges if the checks "bounced."
6) Collectcorp threatened the consumer with criminal charges when the postdated check did allegedly "bounce."
7) Collectcorp unlawfully withdrew money from the consumer's bank account.
8) Collectcorp repeatedly contacted the consumer at her place of employment after she advised it that she could not accept debt collection calls at work.
9) Collectcorp disclosed the nature of the telephone calls to the consumer's employer.
10) Collectcorp continued to collect the alleged debt after the consumer had mailed a written dispute.
"Repeated telephone calls to a consumer's place of employment after the consumer instructs a debt collector to stop is clearly a violation of the FDCPA," said her attorney, Joseph A. Mullaney, III. "It's a pretty good reason to immediately contact a consumer rights attorney because it's a sign that things are only going to get a lot worse," Mullaney said. "I have found that only the most heinous debt collectors will continue to call consumers at their work numbers after being told to stop... if a debt collector will not stop, there is not much else it won't also do," he continued grimly.
Also, a consumer should never provide his or her banking account numbers over the telephone to a debt collector because "once it has your bank account numbers, who's to say you didn't agree to a $1000.00 withdrawal instead of a $100.00 withdrawal?" he asked. Very few consumers experience the correct amounts being withdrawn from their bank accounts even just from collector mistakes. When a postdated check bounces or a withdrawal does not go through, consumers inadvertently "set themselves up for false accusations of criminal wrongdoing which can really make a bad situation a lot worse," he commented. A consumer should not provide postdated checks if there is any chance they may not be covered.
On or about March 27, 2009, Defendant Collectcorp served an Offer of Judgment on Plaintiff which "offers to allow judgment to be taken against it and in favor of Plaintiff..." The Offer of Judgment also stated that "Judgment shall be entered against Collectcorp for statutory and actual damages... for Collectcorp's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act..." Although Collectcorp attempted to couch its offering of a judgment with statements that the Offer of Judgment was not an "admission" and that Collectcorp was not "liable" to Plaintiff, the document speaks for itself: Plaintiff would have won her case against Collectcorp had she accepted it. Collectcorp's Offer of Judgment can be seen as the two documents to the right.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey consumers who believe their fair debt collection rights have been violated are invited to visit www.ConsumerLitigators.com for a free case evaluation by an experienced consumer rights attorney with the Law Office of Dimitrios Kolovos, LLC. Nothing stated herein may be construed nor is it intended to be legal advice. For legal advice, consult an attorney.