Articles Posted in Debt Collection

Reliant Capital Solutions is a debt collection agency headquartered in the State of Ohio. They use a lot of different telephone numbers, but some of the numbers they use are: 866-547-5413, 866-738-3181, 866-837-5096, 614-452-6097, 614-328-0518, 614-328-0514, 614-452-6101, and 614-452-6093. I’m sure there are many others. I have a client who has filed a lawsuit against Reliant Capital Solutions alleging, among other things, that a debt collector working for Reliant Capital Solutions left voicemail messages stating and implying that he is with the “Attorney General’s Office” and that a complaint has been filed against my client. The messages neglect to state that the caller is with Reliant Capital Solutions. It is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to falsely state that a complaint has been filed against a consumer, to fail to disclose that a communication is from a debt collector, to make a telephone call without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity or to falsely state and/or imply that the caller is with the attorney general’s office.

I believe that collectors working for Reliant Capital Solutions often represent themselves as being with or calling on behalf of the attorney general’s office and use this illegal tactic to intimidate consumers and collect debt. When caught, they claim it was a mistake because they do actually work for the Ohio Attorney General (but should they Mr. Attorney General???). Apparently they do collect student loan debt that is referred to them by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. However, this does not allow them to state or imply they are with “the Attorney General’s Office” and does not allow them to state they are “representing” or “calling on behalf of” “the Attorney General’s Office” without disclosing that they work for Reliant Capital Solutions, all of which I believe the collectors are doing.

I believe this not only because of my client’s experience, but also because I have uncovered numerous similar complaints to the Better Business Bureau and, ironically, to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office of this same practice by Reliant Capital Services. HAS THIS HAPPENED TO YOU ALSO? If it has, please contact me by telephone (800-817-0461) or by e-mail (robert@robertdufflaw.com). You may be able to help my client show that this a regular practice of Reliant Capital Solutions, and I may be able to help you vindicate your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

I want to mention a couple decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals that will likely have a profound impact on Indiana consumers for years. The decisions are noteworthy because they are both a significant departure from and/or addition to prior Indiana law and they make it much easier for credit card companies and debt collectors to obtain judgments against Indiana consumers. Do I believe the cases were wrongly decided? Yes I do. But I also believe that part of the problem is that the consumer/defendants tried to represent themselves in these cases.

I don’t mean to say that these consumers meant to do anything wrong. In fact, I feel for them. I know that sometimes there is simply no money to hire an attorney and no way to come up with the money. I understand that. I also know that it can be difficult to find an attorney who knows how to handle debt defense cases and who won’t charge an outrageous fee for doing so. I have clients tell me this often. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have these two Court of Appeals decisions that are potentially harmful to every Indiana consumer in debt because these consumers decided to defend themselves, lost in the trial court and then made the very unfortunate decision to appeal. And if the Court of Appeals opinions are to be believed, neither did a good job of defending their own interests or the interests of Indiana consumers.

One of the cases deals with arbitration. It makes it very difficult for Indiana consumers to challenge an arbitration award. First, and this is critically important, the challenge must be filed within three months after the award is “filed or delivered.” What “filed or delivered” means apparently will depend on the rules of the entity agreed-upon (allegedly) to conduct the arbitration. In this particular case, it was the mailing of the award by U.S. Mail. Proof of receipt of the mailing is not required. This means that, as the consumer alleged in his case, the time to challenge the arbitration award could expire before the consumer has any idea that an arbitration was ever filed! If that happens, under this decision, the consumer is simply out of luck.

It may be too late for many Indiana consumers, but it’s still noteworthy. Congress just passed legislation that will shortly be signed by the President that cracks down on some of the abusive practices long used by the credit card industry. Although the law won’t go into effect for nine months, the bill will generally bar interest rate increases on existing balances unless a cardholder has failed to make even a minimum payment for 60 days, require 45 days’ notice before any interest rate increase, and prohibit increases any time in the first year after an account is activated. The legislation would also require card companies to apply a consumer’s monthly payment to the debt with the highest interest rate, or to all debts equally.

It doesn’t go far enough, but it’s a good first start. And, perhaps more important than the details of the law, is the fact that the tide has turned and the credit card companies know it. Will it result in a restriction of credit? Sure. But I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I think it is a very good thing.

Credit must be given where credit is due (pun intended). This legislation clearly was spearheaded and made possible by President Obama. “I’ve been in Washington 20 years,” said Ed Mierzwinski, the consumer program director with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “For the first 19, we couldn’t even get a committee vote on credit card reform despite these practices.” I am excited and optimistic about the benefits I hope consumers will reap under the Obama administration.

I received a press release the other day – why, I’m not sure – about a company offering new technology to law firms. Here is how it was described: “Technology Company Offers Voice Recognition Solution with Settlement Overtures to Reduce Operational Burden of Collection Attorneys.” Did you get that? If you’re like me, you had to read it about four times and still couldn’t grasp what they meant. I had to read on, and I’m still not sure I completely understand it, but apparently it is computerized auto-dialer and caller that makes collection calls and, get this, through the voice recognition technology, even makes payment arrangements with the alleged debtors. It “has been designed specifically for law firms that are purchasing debt or working on behalf of clients for collection purposes.”

First, did you know that some law firms are actually purchasing debt themselves? That’s right. Just like debt collectors like Asset Acceptance, LVNV and others, some law firms now buy old debt for pennies on the dollar and proceed to attempt to collect on it. Being a law firm, it’s easy for them to sue people since they don’t have to hire an attorney. And they get to keep every penny they collect. What keeps them in check? Supposedly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but that only works if people know their rights and do something about it when they are violated. Also, law firms have to worry about their lawyers’ law licenses, which can be revoked for unethical conduct.

I think it just kind of looks bad to judges when a law firm is suing someone on a debt they bought. I’ve often wondered how often these firms sue under the name of the original creditor (not very often, I hope) or some kind of holding company they use to buy the debt (all the time, I imagine).