With the slowing of the real estate market, attorneys are moving more into the area of debt collection. Sometimes, larger debt purchasers— such as CCS (USA) Inc.— will farm out such debts to attorneys of various states for collection. Their motis operandi is to use the courts of each state to sue potential debtors and acquire defaults. However, CCS (USA) Inc. A/k/s Credit Control Services, Inc. A/k/a Credit Collection Services has been successfully sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. Pierre MARTIN and Kevin L. Nelson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gerald SANDS; Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a / Credit Collection Services; Daniel W. Goldstone; and Goldstone & Sudalter, P.C., Defendants. No. 98-10281-jlt. July 29,1999.
In that case, CCS (USA) Inc. Send out letters to alleged debtors stating that a certain law office was working on their case, when in fact, an existing backlog of cases showed that the law office was not working on a particular case. It was in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Now it seems, they have allegedly dispensed with collection letters indicating that attorneys are working on a case (when they were not), and now directly farm out to attorneys in some way, shape or form. Attorneys then allegedly associate the "original" creditor name with a legal action, rather than make any mention of the CCS connection. This shields the Delaware corporation from suit, while allowing the Delaware corporation to "USE" the state courts of this country to their advantage against what they refer to as a "TARGET." This "TARGET" is the consumer.
Meanwhile, confused and unsophisticated consumers are not honestly informed about the alleged debt. The "fear factor" of attorney contact is retained, while CCS avoids getting involved—except to collect the cash. However, the cut between the attorney and the company does not seem to be truly disclosed. The attorney is free to pass on the bulk of the work to paralegals, or other parties, without the true creditor/owner/collector being accused of any mischievous actions.
The CCS Company hopes for a quick default and garnishment, and gauges a case according to a "monitoring" process. This is the actual strategy of the company&to USE courts and take advantage of unsophisticated consumers and USE greedy lawyers for their own mischievous purposes. Please investigate this matter for class certification. This methodology may be the method of choice throughout the country in order to avoid the problems set forth in the case above.
In fact, their own advertising demonstrates this "new" strategy to USE the courts of the country, and the lawyers, while enjoying protection under Delaware corporation laws. They may be attempting to avoid further potential suits and class actions for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by keeping a rather clandestine position on all involvement in litigation.
Here is part of their ad. As you can see, the person that is sued is referred to as "A TARGETED PARTY."
"CCS has established litigation guidelines that escalate cases that fall within cost justified parameters. Our analysis considers all the information available to evaluate the financial condition of the targeted party, and the probability of success if we litigate based upon case facts and historical recovery rates from similar legal cases..."
"CS facilitates placement and litigation management throughout the legal life cycle. Once placed with an attorney in the debtor's jurisdiction, the file will be monitored according to our performance standards to keep the case progressing while controlling legal expenses."
0 comments