Quick Contact

News

• Stop aggressive debt collectors: You have rights
• The $555,000 Student-Loan Burden: provided by The Wall Street Journal

more >

Case Results

• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• FDCPA- Case Results and Settlements
• NCO Financial Systems, Inc. Violates FDCPA Laws

more >

DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

FDCPA- Case Results and Settlements

The following are some recent FDCPA case results that John Cole Gayle, Jr. has obtained. The names of our clients have been withheld due to privacy laws.

- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The debt collector’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways.
     In May 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The debt collector’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways.
     In August 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.

- At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The Debt collector contacted the Plaintiff at work, on the cell phone, and contacted co-workers. The Plaintiff also asked the debt collector to validate the debt, and to cease and desist contact. The debt collector also made false, deceptive, and misleading representation stating that a judgment had been entered against the Plaintiff.
     In September 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.

-  At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The debt collector communicated with the Plaintiff at places known to be inconvenient to the Plaintiff, including his place of employment despite being repeatedly told to stop; failed to validate the debt at the time of initial contact and/or in writing within five days thereafter; failed to cease communications after being directed to do so by the Plaintiff; failed to disclose in the initial communication the Plaintiff had thirty days to dispute the debt; threatened to take legal action that cannot be taken; and, stated or implied that legal action is imminent when it is not.
     In September 2009, the matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.

-    At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the complaint, within one year of the filing of the complaint, the debt collector contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including but not limited to:
     a) Making false and misleading representations regarding the amount and status of the debt;
     b) Communicating to any person credit information which should be known to be false, including failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
     c) Using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of this debt,;
     d) The attempt to collect an amount not authorized by any agreement between the creditor and the Plaintiff.

     As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for her statutory damages costs and attorney fees.
     In February 2010, the debt collector agreed to waive and release any right it had to collect on the balance of the debt. The debt collector further agreed to close the account and agreed not to sell or reassign the debt. The matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.

-     The Plaintiff received a letter from a debt collector. The Plaintiff responded by disputing the alleged debt and requesting verification. No proper verification was supplied by the debt collector and the debt collector never advised any credit reporting agency that this debt was disputed. The three year statute of limitations expired on this unsigned agreement regarding this credit card account. After the expiration of the statute of limitations, the debt collector filed suit on this time barred debt against the Plaintiff.
     As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for her statutory damages costs and attorney fees.
     In February 2010, the debt collector agreed to waive and release any right it had to collect on the balance of the debt. The debt collector further agreed to close the account and agreed not to sell or reassign the debt. The matter was resolved by a cash payment with the agreement of all parties.

-     In September 2008, the automated calls from NCO Financial Systems, Inc. began to the plaintiff’s home telephone number. NCO was attempting to get in contact with an individual who was not the Plaintiff and identified the caller as a debt collector. In November 2008, the Plaintiff called the phone number and spoke to a supervisor. The Plaintiff advised the supervisor that the individual they were seeking did not live there and to please stop calling. The supervisor said NCO would immediately remove his number from their calling list.
     The calls did not stop and on other occasions the Plaintiff informed other individuals at NCO that the person they were trying to find did not live there and to please stop calling. These calls would come during the day when he was sleeping, but were annoying, disrupting, and causing him loss of sleep and distress, since he works the night shift at his employment.
     NCO=s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including but not limited to engaging in conduct of which the natural consequence is to harass, oppress, or abuse, intent to annoy, abuse, or harass. And, calling the plaintiff more than once after being told that the person NCO was seeking did not live there when NCO had no information that the previous response was erroneous and that plaintiff now had complete location information. As a result of the acts alleged above, the Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including physical ailments, embarrassment, and emotional distress.
     In March 2009, NCO entered an Offer of Judgment for $1500 plus legal fees and costs, either agreed to or to be decided by the court. The Plaintiff accepted this offer.