ENCORE & PRA Consent Order

[cshot37]

I am just wondering if anyone on this forum has been fortunate enough to have had a judgement vacated by either Encore or PRA per the consent orders they both agreed to.  I have never heard of a single case in which they have vacated a judgement.  Shouldn't this be considered a violation of the Consent Orders?

[Goody_Ouchless]

Such a small percentage of their total business was affected, it's like a needle in a haystack.

[WhoCares1000]

Believe it or not, most consumers would have no clue if a case was part of the consent order or not. If you asked most people on the street, they would not know who Encore or PRA is let alone that they signed a consent order with the government.

Also remember that 95% - 98% of the people in debt trouble never fight their cases anyways. Even if there was a consent decree, they probably would do nothing about it. Judges cannot act on what is not brought to their attention.

I also doubt that Encore or PRA know how many cases have been brought and which ones would fall under the consent decree. They probably have taken the path of "if no one complains, it is alright."

Finally, the courts do not report on the status of various civil cases. Without doing research, one would have no clue why a case was vacated.

So to say that because you have not heard of a case being vacated, that means they are in violation of the consent decree is very premature and possibly an incorrect assumption.

[cshot37]

The reason why I asked is because when I first joined this community back in 2012, I was being sued by Midland.  I objected and objected to the affidavits that were submitted citing both State of Texas v Midland and State of Minnesota v Midland (where I live and where the affidavits came from) as well as bringing up the class action case from Ohio where it was found that a deceased woman was signing affidavits still.  The judge took no mercy on me and said that since they had a piece of paper with my name and social security number then they had bought the debt and I owed them.  How a judge acts and reacts is the one thing that we can never know.

After finding out about the Consent Order, I immediately contacted Midland and asked that I be included in the settlement, even going as far as sending them a copy of the transcripts from the case, and a highlighted copy of the Consent Order.  As of now they have still not vacated the judgement and still report it to the credit reporting agencies.

I have recently filed a complaint with the CFPB in hopes that it will make Midland at least take notice.

Hopefully, the squeaky wheel will.......

[Goody_Ouchless]

I'm sure the judge, transcriptionist, gallery and opposing counsel were all stunned that you were arguing against a debt that you owed. Surest way to defeat is to fight in court when the facts aren't on your side. If the debt wasn't yours, you would have been able to demonstrate that to Midland (identity theft, guy next door with same name, etc.) and they would have dropped the case.

[BV80]

1 hour ago, cshot37 said:

The reason why I asked is because when I first joined this community back in 2012, I was being sued by Midland.  I objected and objected to the affidavits that were submitted citing both State of Texas v Midland and State of Minnesota v Midland (where I live and where the affidavits came from) as well as bringing up the class action case from Ohio where it was found that a deceased woman was signing affidavits still.  The judge took no mercy on me and said that since they had a piece of paper with my name and social security number then they had bought the debt and I owed them.  How a judge acts and reacts is the one thing that we can never know.

After finding out about the Consent Order, I immediately contacted Midland and asked that I be included in the settlement, even going as far as sending them a copy of the transcripts from the case, and a highlighted copy of the Consent Order.  As of now they have still not vacated the judgement and still report it to the credit reporting agencies.

I have recently filed a complaint with the CFPB in hopes that it will make Midland at least take notice.

Hopefully, the squeaky wheel will.......

Why do you believe you should be part of the settlement?   To which section of the Consent Order are you referring?

[Harry Seaward]

3 hours ago, cshot37 said:

  I have never heard of a single case in which they have vacated a judgement.

You won't because enforcement of the consent order lies exclusively with the CFPB. Courts have no authority to take any action against PRA or Encore relative to the consent order. 

[cshot37]

14 hours ago, BV80 said:

Why do you believe you should be part of the settlement?   To which section of the Consent Order are you referring?

I believe the following sections of the Consent Order refer to my specific case with Midland.  My actual court date was in 2013.

These are the violations according to the Consent Order

Filing Misleading Collection Affidavits

 86. In numerous instances, in connection with collecting or attempting to

collect Debt from Consumers, in affidavits filed in courts across the country, Encore

represented directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:

 a. Debts not disputed pursuant to Section 809(a)(3) of the FDCPA are

presumed valid by a court;

b. Encore affiants had reviewed account-level documentation from the original

Creditor corroborating the Consumer's Debt;

c. Debt seller affiants had reviewed hard copy records corroborating the

Consumer's Debt;

d. Documents attached to affidavits were specific to the Consumer; or

e. Encore affiants had personal knowledge of the individual Consumer's

indebtedness.

87. In truth and in fact:

a. Debts not disputed pursuant to Section 809(a)(3) of the FDCPA are not

presumed valid by a court, because pursuant to Section 809(c) of the

FDCPA, "[t]he failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt [after

receiving a notice under Section 809] may not be construed by any court as

an admission of liability by the consumer";

b. In numerous instances, Encore affiants had not reviewed account-level

documentation from the original Creditor corroborating the Consumer's

Debt;

c. In numerous instances, Debt seller affiants had not reviewed hard copy

records corroborating the Consumer's Debt;

d. In numerous instances, documentation attached to affidavits was not

specific to the Consumer; and

e. In numerous instances, Encore affiants did not have personal knowledge of

the individual Consumer defendant's indebtedness.

 

AND

 

Filing Misleading Collection Affidavits

 

109. In numerous instances, in connection with collecting or attempting to

collect Debt from Consumers, in affidavits filed in courts across the country, Encore

represented directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:

a. Debts not disputed pursuant to Section 809(a)(3) of the FDCPA are

presumed valid by a court;

b. Encore affiants had reviewed account-level documentation from the original

Creditor corroborating the Consumer's Debt;

c. Debt seller affiants had reviewed hard copy records corroborating the

Consumer's Debt;

d. Documents attached to affidavits were specific to the Consumer; or

e. Encore affiants had personal knowledge of the individual Consumer's

indebtedness.

 

110. In truth and in fact:

a. Debts not disputed pursuant to Section 809(a)(3) ofthe FDCPA are not

presumed valid by a court, because pursuant to Section 809(c) of the

FDCPA, "[t]he failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt [after

receiving a notice under Section 809] may not be construed by any court as

an admission of liability by the consumer";

b. In numerous instances, Encore affiants had not reviewed account-level

documentation from the original Creditor corroborating the Consumer's

Debt;

c. In numerous instances, Debt seller affiants had not reviewed hard copy

records corroborating the Consumer's Debt;

d. In numerous instances, Documentation attached to affidavits was not

specific to the Consumer; and

e. In numerous instances, Encore affiants did not have personal knowledge of

the individual Consumer defendant's indebtedness.

 

And in the Order TO Pay Redress I believe that I fall under the following category

 

 

146. For the Dispute Affidavit Lawsuit Debt that has yet to be collected, expected

to total more than $12s,ooo,ooo, Encore must within 90 days of the Effective Date:

a.Withdraw, dismiss, or terminate all pending Dispute Affidavit Lawsuits;

b. Release or move to vacate all judgments obtained during the Relevant

Period regarding Dispute Affidavit Lawsuits;

c. Cease post-judgment enforcement activities and cease accepting

settlement payments related to any Dispute Affidavit Lawsuits; and

d. Request that the Consumer reporting agencies amend, delete, or

suppress information regarding any Dispute Affidavit Lawsuits, and

associated judgments, as applicable.

[BV80]

@cshot37

You need to review the affidavit that was filed by Midland in your lawsuit.  Did it state that "Debts not disputed pursuant to Section 809(a)(3) of the FDCPA are presumed valid by a court"?

[tom234ut]

I am glad I took a look at this thread. I googled and found the following:

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-encore-capital-group.pdf

File No. 2015-CFPG-0022

In the Matter of:

Encore Capital Group, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Asset Acceptance
Capital Corp.,

This one might be different form the that OP is talking about (OP, if you would put a link or note the File No of what you are talking about it would be helpful.) Although on further checking, the paragraph numbers 86, 109 and 146 seem to line up.

I am glad I looked into it, as I have a Judgment against me form Asset Acceptance that my attorney failed to respond to MSJ. I'll be looking at what I can do to get the Judgment set aside (probably the subject of another thread.)

[nobk4me]

On 1/23/2018 at 8:54 PM, tom234ut said:

I am glad I took a look at this thread. I googled and found the following:

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-encore-capital-group.pdf

File No. 2015-CFPG-0022

In the Matter of:

Encore Capital Group, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Asset Acceptance
Capital Corp.,

This one might be different form the that OP is talking about (OP, if you would put a link or note the File No of what you are talking about it would be helpful.) Although on further checking, the paragraph numbers 86, 109 and 146 seem to line up.

I am glad I looked into it, as I have a Judgment against me form Asset Acceptance that my attorney failed to respond to MSJ. I'll be looking at what I can do to get the Judgment set aside (probably the subject of another thread.)

You need to sue your attorney for legal malpractice.  Not responding to a SJ motion is extreme incompetence or negligence.  Your damages should be the amount of the judgment against you.

[Coltman66]

I have a similar case myself... Curious to see how yours worked out. Just filed the whole order in court,  referenced it numerous times and challenged all the documents they submitted. Also submitted a complaint to the cfpb.