The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lays out some pretty clear dos and don’ts for debt collectors. Do identify yourself as a debt collector. Do follow up within five days of your initial communication with a written notice setting out the amount of the debt, the creditor's name, and details about how consumers can proceed if they dispute the debt. Now for some don’ts: Don’t imply a government affiliation. Don’t accuse people of a crime or threaten them with arrest. And don’t tell them that the Sheriff will be showing up at their home or place of business. But according to a lawsuit filed by the FTC against United Check Processing, Inc., 12 related corporate defendants, and corporate officers Mark Briandi and William Moses, the defendants didn’t do the dos and did do the don’ts, in violation of the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The complaint charges that the defendants – primarily based in the Buffalo area – used deceptive, unfair, and abusive tactics to pressure people into paying debts, many of which the consumers had disputed in whole or in part. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants said they’d have people arrested for non-payment or prosecuted for check fraud if they didn’t pony up. According to the FTC, the defendants attempted to bolster the credibility of their threats by using company names with words like “Federal” or “U.S.”
Faced with defendants’ browbeating, many consumers cried uncle and paid them just to stop the harassment. Others who checked with the purported creditor found out they didn’t owe the debt, had already paid it, or that the defendants didn’t have authority to collect on it. Still others explained that they had challenged the debt, but the FTC says the defendants were undeterred. They continued the collection siege without taking independent steps to verify the accuracy of the account information.
The complaint cites a host of other alleged violations, including illegally communicating with family, friends, coworkers, and employers about a consumer’s purported debt; failing to provide the required validation notice; falsely claiming they had filed or intended to file a lawsuit against the consumer; and falsely claiming they would have their wages garnished, property seized, and bank accounts levied.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York. While the case is pending, consider whether it’s time for a compliance check-up for your own debt collection practices. Refer to resources on the Business Center’s Debt Collection page.
The purpose of this blog and its comments section is to inform readers about Federal Trade Commission activity, and share information to help them avoid, report, and recover from fraud, scams, and bad business practices. Your thoughts, ideas, and concerns are welcome, and we encourage comments. But keep in mind, this is a moderated blog. We review all comments before they are posted, and we won’t post comments that don’t comply with our commenting policy. We expect commenters to treat each other and the blog writers with respect.
- We won’t post off-topic comments, repeated identical comments, or comments that include sales pitches or promotions.
- We won’t post comments that include vulgar messages, personal attacks by name, or offensive terms that target specific people or groups.
- We won’t post threats, defamatory statements, or suggestions or encouragement of illegal activity.
- We won’t post comments that include personal information, like Social Security numbers, account numbers, home addresses, and email addresses. To file a detailed report about a scam, go to ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
We don't edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please ensure that your comment contains none of the above. The comments posted on this blog become part of the public domain. To protect your privacy and the privacy of other people, please do not include personal information. Opinions in comments that appear in this blog belong to the individuals who expressed them. They do not belong to or represent views of the Federal Trade Commission.