Fair Debt Collection Blog - Stop Collection Calls - End Debt Harassment | CreditLaw.com - Free Legal Help http://www.creditlaw.com/blog Debt Collection Lawyers Kimmel and Silverman Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:20:54 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1 Craig Kimmel on Milwaukee TV Talking About Robocalls http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/craig-kimmel-on-milwaukee-tv-talking-about-robocalls/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/craig-kimmel-on-milwaukee-tv-talking-about-robocalls/#respond Thu, 23 May 2019 13:47:51 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3178 Read More

]]>
We’ve all seen those annoying, random calls on our cell phones. They happen while you eat, while you sleep, while you work – your phone rings with unwanted calls from unknown numbers. They might be robocalls, fake sales calls or real telemarketers and as annoying as they may be, not all those calls are illegal.

Consumer Attorney Craig Thor Kimmel discusses these calls with WTMJ-TV Milwaukee in this special report:

Read more about it here: https://www.tmj4.com/robocalls/battling-robocalls-is-an-uphill-battle-for-lawmakers

Kimmel & Silverman stops collection calls, computer dialed calls and “robo” calls. You can collect $500 per call* through the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and up to $1,000 through the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

When they call you, they never expect you to call us!

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/craig-kimmel-on-milwaukee-tv-talking-about-robocalls/feed/ 0
Protect yourself: The best ways to stop unwanted robocalls http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/protect-yourself-the-best-ways-to-stop-unwanted-robocalls/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/protect-yourself-the-best-ways-to-stop-unwanted-robocalls/#respond Wed, 08 May 2019 14:10:07 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3174 Consumer Attorney Amy L.B. Ginsburg talks with Walt Kane of News12 about unwanted robocalls as part of this exclusive 4-part series from News 12 Networks in New Jersey.

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/protect-yourself-the-best-ways-to-stop-unwanted-robocalls/feed/ 0
Ocwen Financial Blowing Up Your Cell? Stop the Calls and Receive Thousands http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/ocwen-financial-blowing-up-your-cell-stop-the-calls-and-receive-thousands/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/ocwen-financial-blowing-up-your-cell-stop-the-calls-and-receive-thousands/#comments Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:33:13 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3148 Read More

]]>
A National class action suit has been filed against Ocwen for violating consumer rights and continuously harassing consumers with automated cell phone calls. However, the remedies being offered in this class action provide a small fraction of what consumers could actually receive if they file the claim on their own. If you received consistent automated calls from Ocwen, you could file a claim under the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act in an effort to recover significant recourse, $500-$1500 PER CALL. That’s right–if you elect to file on your own, you could possibly receive $500-$1500 per call. BUT YOU MUST OPT OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION SUIT NO LATER THAN MARCH 5, 2018.

Kimmel and Silverman is one of the Nation’s oldest, largest and most successful consumer law firms in the Country. Our efforts in batting harassing cell phone calls from companies such as Ocwen have been featured on newscasts throughout the Country. In certain TCPA cases, we have recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars for our clients. Let our firm help you go after Ocwen for the damages you deserve. CALL 1 800 NOT FAIR (1 800 667 3247) TODAY! The help is 100% cost-free.

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/ocwen-financial-blowing-up-your-cell-stop-the-calls-and-receive-thousands/feed/ 4
Kimmel & Silverman Wins $300,000 for Harmarville, PA Client Against Navient http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/kimmel-silverman-wins-300000-for-client-against-navient/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/kimmel-silverman-wins-300000-for-client-against-navient/#respond Mon, 17 Jul 2017 17:00:27 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3133 Read More

]]>
When Paul DeMuth fell behind on his student loan payments, he started receiving collection calls from Navient, formerly part of Sallie Mae. They called multiple times a day and even when he asked them to stop, they kept coming. He turned to Kimmel & Silverman for help and filed suit.

An independent arbitrator found Navient made 200 unauthorized robocalls to DeMuth during a two-year period. The arbitrator said Navient made the calls knowingly or willingly and ordered the company to pay DeMuth $1,500 per call, for a total of $300,000. DeMuth owed just $15,700 on his loan, and that will be deducted from the award.

“It’s pretty clear in Paul’s case, those calls were knowingly and willingly made because the recordings were pretty clear that he was telling them, ‘Don’t call me,’ and they continued to call,” Amy Ginsburg, our attorney assigned to the case, said.

You can read the full story covered by Action News Pittsburgh, here:

Harmarville man fights robocaller, wins $300,000

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/kimmel-silverman-wins-300000-for-client-against-navient/feed/ 0
CFPB Considers Suing Student Loan Giant Navient For Cheating Borrowers http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/cfpb-considers-suing-student-loan-giant-navient-for-cheating-borrowers/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/cfpb-considers-suing-student-loan-giant-navient-for-cheating-borrowers/#comments Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:35:32 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3046 Read More

]]>
Federal regulators are considering suing Navient Corp., the nation’s largest student loan company, for allegedly cheating borrowers, the company said Monday.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been investigating the company for nearly two years, sent Navient a letter on Aug. 19 telling its executives that the agency’s enforcement staff had found enough evidence to indicate the company violated consumer protection laws, Navient disclosed Monday in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The CFPB also told Navient that the agency’s senior officials would now consider whether to sue the company in court.

The agency sent similar letters to for-profit college chains Corinthian Colleges Inc. and ITT Educational Services before it later sued them. Representatives for the CFPB didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Concerns are mounting among policymakers that the nation’s growing $1.3 trillion student loan tab risks slowing economic growth, as millions of households either struggle to make payments or cut back in other ways. And regulators and experts worry that shoddy loan servicing may be partly responsible, as many borrowers complain they’re routinely mistreated and forced to stump up larger monthly payments than required.

Navient, which processes more student loan payments than any firm in the country, has been under investigation for at least two years by several federal and state authorities for allegedly overcharging borrowers and otherwise mistreating them in violation of the law. The Department of Justice accused the company in 2014 of intentionally cheating active-duty troops on their student loans for nearly a decade.

The CFPB also has been investigating the company for numerous allegedly dodgy practices, such as the way its debt-collection unit treats distressed debtors and how its loan-servicing operation interacts with borrowers. A group of state attorneys general led by Washington and Illinois has been probing the company for more than a year. A feared regulator on Wall Street, the New York Department of Financial Services, also has launched an investigation.

Navient executives told investors in the Monday filing that the company couldn’t assure them that a CFPB lawsuit wouldn’t significantly hurt the company, nor could it share an estimate of potential losses as a result of a CFPB-ordered penalty or lawsuit.

Investors have hammered Navient’s stock, sending its shares plummeting 39.6 percent since the start of the year. By comparison, one of its competitors, Nelnet Inc., is down 19.5 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, the U.S. equities benchmark, has fallen 8 percent.

“The company is committed to resolving any potential concerns,” Navient said. It added that it planned to challenge the CFPB’s preliminary findings and persuade the agency to not go after the company.

In its Monday filing, Navient said the CFPB’s potential legal action stems from its late-fee practices and what it described as “other matters.” Patricia Christel, a company spokeswoman, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Last year in May, Navient and its predecessor, Sallie Mae, agreed to pay $36.6 million in fines and restitution after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. alleged it processed payments in a way that maximized late fees while the company also misled borrowers about how they could avoid late fees.

Around the time of the settlement, the company disclosed that it would “voluntarily” pay back other aggrieved borrowers about $42 million for its late-fee practices. That refund process — which the CFPB is expected to address — is now mostly complete, the company said in August in its most recent quarterly report.

For more than a year, Navient consistently has denied wrongdoing, though its chief executive, Jack Remondi, apologized last year for how it treated some troops. In its Monday filing, the company said it “continues to believe that its acts and practices relating to student loans are lawful and meet industry standards.” Navient also said that some of its practices were in line with rules set by its other regulators.

The company has a lucrative federal contract to collect payments on government-owned loans with the Department of Education. In May, the department formally cleared the company of wrongdoing after what some Senate Democrats reckon was a dubious investigation into how Navient treated active-duty troops with federal student loans.

Last year, Holly Petraeus, assistant director for service member affairs at the CFPB, said Navient’s alleged conduct toward service members was “particularly troubling from a company that benefits so generously from federal contracts.”

Earlier this year, the Education Department stopped sending new accounts to a Navient debt-collection subsidiary after determining that it had allegedly misled borrowers “at unacceptably high rates.”

But the company continues to receive newly originated loans from the Education Department, boosting its overall profit. Navient hasn’t disclosed any pending Education Department investigations into its practices.

“We continue to work closely with CFPB and other federal agencies to protect student loan borrowers,” said Dorie Nolt, an Education Department spokeswoman. “We’ve made a variety of changes to improve loan servicing, and we’re constantly monitoring our servicers. We won’t hesitate to take action against a servicer that isn’t following the law.”

Navient’s predecessor company, Sallie Mae, ran afoul of government authorities numerous times before it split itself last year into Navient and Sallie Mae Bank. State prosecutors, banking regulators and Education Department auditors all have at different times alleged that the company violated the law.

IF YOU’VE BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY NAVIENT, CONTACT US FOR FREE LEGAL REPRESENTATION! CALL 1-800-NOT-FAIR OR CLICK HERE.

Article Source from The Huffington Post:
CFPB Considers Suing Student Loan Giant Navient For Cheating Borrowers

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/cfpb-considers-suing-student-loan-giant-navient-for-cheating-borrowers/feed/ 1
Honda Settles Discrimination Claims with Justice Department http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/honda-settles-discrimination-claims-justice-department http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/honda-settles-discrimination-claims-justice-department#respond Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:37:53 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3034 Read More

]]>
Car manufacturer, American Honda Motor Co., reached a settlement on Tuesday to resolve allegations that the company discriminated against minority car buyers by marking up interest rates on loans, a practice industry experts describe as common because of the discretion given to individual dealerships.

The Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau accused Honda dealers of charging higher interest rates to thousands of black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander customers than white car buyers. Those minority customers paid an average of between $150 and $250 more during the terms of their loans, the Justice Department said.

Honda said in a statement that it “strongly opposes any form of discrimination, and we expect our dealers to uphold this principle, as well.”

Read more here:

Honda Settles Discrimination Claims with Justice Department from Chron.com (original article has been removed, link removed).

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/honda-settles-discrimination-claims-justice-department/feed/ 0
Time Warner Owes $229,500 for Robocalls to the Wrong Person http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/time-warner-owes-229500-for-robocalls-to-the-wrong-person/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/time-warner-owes-229500-for-robocalls-to-the-wrong-person/#respond Thu, 09 Jul 2015 17:00:06 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3032 Read More

]]>
Many people dislike receiving robocalls. Araceli King disliked receiving 153 of them from a single company.

A Manhattan federal judge ruled that Time Warner Cable must pay insurance claims specialist Araceli King, $229,500 for placing 153 automated calls to her cellphone in less than a year, even after she told it to stop. King accused Time Warner Cable of harassing her by leaving messages for Luiz Perez, who once had the same cellphone number as she does, even after she made it clear who she was.

The calls were made through an “interactive voice response” system meant for customers who were late paying bills.

Time Warner Cable claims that it is not liable under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a law meant to curb robocall and telemarketing abuses, because it believed it was calling Perez, who had consented to the calls.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein awarded triple damages of $1,500 per call for willfully violating that law. 74 of the calls had been placed after King sued in March 2014, and Time Warner Cable claimed that still did not know King objected to the calls.

“Defendant harassed plaintiff with robo-calls until she had to resort to a lawsuit to make the calls stop, and even then TWC could not be bothered to update the information in its IVR system,” Hellerstein wrote.

A trial had been scheduled for July 27. Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Susan Leepson said the New York-based company is reviewing the decision.

“Companies are using computers to dial phone numbers,” King’s lawyer Sergei Lemberg said in a phone interview. “They benefit from efficiency, but there is a cost when they make people’s lives miserable. This was one such case.”

The case is King v Time Warner Cable, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-02018.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-time-warner-cable-owes-229500-to-woman-it-would-not-stop-calling-2015-7

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/time-warner-owes-229500-for-robocalls-to-the-wrong-person/feed/ 0
Debt Collector Green Tree Responsible for Burden of Proof http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/debt-collector-green-tree-responsible-for-burden-of-proof/ http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/debt-collector-green-tree-responsible-for-burden-of-proof/#respond Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:00:27 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3039 Read More

]]>
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, debt collectors contacting third parties to locate debtors must show that the contact was purely to locate the debtor. In this case, Patricia Evankavitch, the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the debt collection agency Green Tree after they continually called her neighbors and daughter.

Current laws allow a debt collector to contact third parties only once to find the location of a debtor. The exception to this is if the collector believes they’ve been given incorrect information.

The Third Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause stated that “Although Green Tree suggests otherwise in its briefing, it cites little in the record that indicates that it actually attempted to discern the location of Evankavitch during this call or any subsequent call. Instead, these calls to the (neighbors) appear to have been made with the same purpose as the calls made to (her daughter).”

The court had to determine which party needed to provide the burden of proof. Usually a defendant is required to in these kinds of cases but the court ruled that Green Tree was responsible based on the fact that they had the “peculiar knowledge” on relevant facts.

Read the full story here:
Debt Collector Green Tree Responsible for Burden of Proof

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/debt-collector-green-tree-responsible-for-burden-of-proof/feed/ 0
FCC Strengthens Consumer Protections Against Unwanted Calls, Texts http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/fcc-strengthens-consumer-protections-against-unwanted-calls-texts http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/fcc-strengthens-consumer-protections-against-unwanted-calls-texts#respond Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:48:18 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3020 Read More

]]>
FCC STRENGTHENS CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNWANTED CALLS AND TEXTS

Commission Responds to Requests from Businesses and Attorneys General for Guidance on Robocall Blocking, Autodialers, Recycled Phone Numbers and More

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2015 – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a proposal to protect consumers against unwanted robocalls and spam texts. In a package of declaratory rulings, the Commission affirmed consumers’ rights to control the calls they receive. As part of this package, the Commission also made clear that telephone companies face no legal barriers to allowing consumers to choose to use robocall-blocking technology.

The rulings were informed by thousands of consumer complaints about robocalls the FCC receives each month. Complaints related to unwanted calls are the largest category of complaints received by the Commission, numbering more than 215,000 in 2014.

Today’s action addresses almost two dozen petitions and other requests that sought clarity on how the Commission interprets the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), closing loopholes and strengthening consumer protections already on the books. The TCPA requires prior express consent for non-emergency autodialed, prerecorded, or artificial voice calls to wireless phone numbers, as well as for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential wireline numbers.

The rulings provide much needed clarity for consumers and businesses. Highlights for consumers who use either landline or wireless phones include:

  • Green Light for ‘Do Not Disturb’ Technology – Service providers can offer robocall-blocking technologies to consumers and implement market-based solutions that consumers can use to stop unwanted robocalls.
  • Empowering Consumers to Say ‘Stop’ – Consumers have the right to revoke their consent to receive robocalls and robotexts in any reasonable way at any time.
  • Reassigned Numbers Aren’t Loopholes – If a phone number has been reassigned, companies must stop calling the number after one call.
  • Third-Party Consent – A consumer whose name is in the contacts list of an acquaintance’s phone does not consent to receive robocalls from third-party applications downloaded by the acquaintance.

Additional highlights for wireless consumers include:

  • Affirming the Law’s Definition of Autodialer – “Autodialer” is defined in the Act as any technology with the capacity to dial random or sequential numbers. This definition ensures that robocallers cannot skirt consumer consent requirements through changes in calling technology design or by calling from a list of numbers.
  • Text Messages as Calls – The Commission reaffirmed that consumers are entitled to the same consent-based protections for texts as they are for voice calls to wireless numbers.
  • Internet-to-Phone Text Messages – Equipment used to send Internet-to-phone text messages is an autodialer, so the caller must have consumer consent before calling.
  • Very Limited and Specific Exemptions for Urgent Circumstances – Free calls or texts to alert consumers to possible fraud on their bank accounts or remind them of important medication refills, among other financial alerts or healthcare messages, are allowed without prior consent, but other types of financial or healthcare calls, such as marketing or debt collection calls, are not allowed under these limited and very specific exemptions. Also, consumers have the right to opt out from these permitted calls and texts at any time.

Today’s actions make no changes to the Do-Not-Call Registry, which restricts unwanted telemarketing calls, but are intended to build on the Registry’s effectiveness by closing loopholes and ensuring that consumers are fully protected from unwanted calls, including those not covered by the Registry.

By taking action today, the Commission is embracing the opportunity afforded by the 21 requests for clarification of the law to clearly stand with consumers against unwanted calls.

Action by the Commission June 18, 2015 by Declaratory Ruling and Order (FCC 15-72). Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Clyburn, Commissioners Rosenworcel and O’Rielly approving and dissenting in part and Commissioner Pai dissenting. Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai and O’Rielly issuing statements.

###

Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500
TTY: (888) 835-5322
Twitter: @FCC
www.fcc.gov/office-media-relations
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).

Republished from FCC.gov.

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/fcc-strengthens-consumer-protections-against-unwanted-calls-texts/feed/ 0
Uber Sued in Class Action for Alleged Text-Message Spamming http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/uber-sued-class-action-alleged-text-message-spamming http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/uber-sued-class-action-alleged-text-message-spamming#respond Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:47:45 +0000 http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/?p=3015 Read More

]]>
A class action filed against Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) alleges that the San Francisco-based company has been spamming consumer cellphones with text messages.

The class action, filed December 2015, claims Uber sent unsolicited text messages to consumers without their express prior consent.

If these allegations are determined to be factual, Uber may be found in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute that restricts telemarketers and debt collectors in their use of auto-dialers and pre-recorded voice messages when communicating with home phone lines, cellular phones, text messages, and fax machines.

Plaintiffs from Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oregon allege that they have received automatically dialed text messages from Uber on personal cellphones without permission on multiple occasions. James Lathrop is among the plaintiffs listed in the class action and claims that Uber sent “approximately 19 automated text messages,” distributed using “approximately 13 different numbers.”

Uber has since filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that the messages were not in violation of the TCPA, but were “recruiting materials.” The company’s attorneys have taken the position that the messages were sent to potential Uber drivers as hiring solicitations, not advertisements, and that they do not fall under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Whether the text messages were solicitations or advertisements would not make any difference, according to consumer attorney Craig Thor Kimmel of CreditLaw.com, who says, “For Uber to prevail, they must establish that prior consent for the messages was given by each consumer, otherwise they are in violation of the TCPA.”

The lawyers in the case observed that, in separate litigation about employment benefits, Uber claimed it was “merely a software company,” and that its drivers aren’t considered employees.

“In Uber’s eyes, drivers are every bit as much its customers as its passengers,” says the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Hassan Zavareei.

Uber’s attorneys respond that Uber has “consistently described its drivers as independent contractors, not customers.”

The class action seeks statutory damages from of $500 for each violation of the TCPA over the last four years, statutory damages of $1,500 for each knowing or willful violation of the TCPA over the last four years, actual and punitive damages, a permanent injunction prohibiting Uber from sending text messages through an auto-dialer without recipients’ prior express consent, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and the costs of the instant suit.

]]>
http://www.creditlaw.com/blog/uber-sued-class-action-alleged-text-message-spamming/feed/ 0