Portfolio Recovery Associates (“PRA”) was the defendant in at least seven lawsuits filed during 2011 which alleged that PRA violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act while attempting to collect “zombie” debts.
A Florida consumer alleged that PRA called him demanding that he pay a debt that was at least eight years old. (In Florida, such an account is long past the statute of limitations.) According to the consumer, PRA told him that they would “go legal” to enforce the debt unless he paid it.
A California consumer alleged that PRA call him at work attempting to collect an alleged debt that was approximately twenty years old. The consumer alleged that he told PRA that they were calling him at work and to stop calling him there. According to the consumer, PRA’s employee responded that they would continue to call him at that number despite his request. The consumer also alleged that PRA threatened to report the alleged account on his credit report although it is nearly twenty years old.
Collection agencies can not call consumers at work once they know it is inconvenient for the consumer to accept calls at work. If a consumer tells the collection agency that such calls are inconvenient, the collection agency would violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if it continued to call the consumer.
If PRA threatened to reinsert a twenty year old account into a consumer’s credit report, even threatening to do so would violate the FDPCA. Accounts which were charged off at least seven years ago should not appear on consumer credit reports; lying about the date of last activity (the charge off date) is called “re-aging” the debt.
During 2010, a Georgia consumer alleged that PRA violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect an account which had remained dormant for over fifteen years. According to the consumer, PRA’s dunning letter was deceptive because it informed her that she owed PRA $ 736.61 and that her first payment was due no later than 11/17/2009.
In my opinion, the Georgia consumer has a valid claim that PRA misrepresented the “due date” and “amount due” by arbitrarily creating one which was not agreed to. Such letters seem especially false or deceptive because consumers who pay even a penny towards a time barred account risk reviving the entire account.
A Texas consumer alleged that PRA attempted to collect a deficiency on a wrecked automobile account which consumer last paid during 2000. According to the consumer, PRA listed the account on her credit report as a “2010 debt”. PRA also called up to three times a day attempting to collect the account.
If PRA listed an account which was last paid during 2000 as a “2010 debt”, the consumer should prevail on their re-aging claim.
During 2011, a Virginia consumer alleged that PRA told her that unless she paid the debt she was not a decent person and disrespectful while attempting to collect a Citibank account which the consumer paid off during 2011. The consumer alleged that, although she send PRA a copy of her credit reports showing that she paid off the account, PRA continued to call her. According to the consumer, PRA advised her that it had verified the debt and that it was a debt she owed and falsely told her that PRA was attempting to collect a different account than the one she’d paid off.
In 2011, a Texas consumer alleged that PRA called him “up to two times per day, almost every day, for more than one year” while attempting to collect an alleged debt that was inactive since the 1980′s or 1990′s. According to the consumer, he repeatedly answered PRA’s telephone calls and repeatedly told PRA that he would not pay and to stop calling.
Calling twice a day for more than a year about an account that has not been paid in ten or even twenty years may prove up a claim for harassment or abuse because the consumer also alleged that he answered the phone “repeatedly” and objected to the calls. Normally, requests that debt collectors stop calling must be in writing.
New Jersey consumers alleged that PRA called them up to twice a day and up to ten times in one week while attempting to collect a debt totaling approximately $ 337.76 which was last paid during 1995. The consumer alleged that he “told” PRA to stop calling but failed to allege that his request was in writing. This consumer’s claim were rather weak.
Although harassment includes debt collectors calling too often, there is much misinformation about how many times a debt collector can probably call during one day.
The consumers will have to prove that PRA caused their :
“telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass …”
them. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 806. In my opinion, suing debt collectors for placing two calls during a day is not a commonly accepted basis for suing without unusual facts. A collection agency attempting to collect a zombie debt may receive little sympathy though.
Compared to the New Jersey consumer, a Minnesota couple probably have stronger claims against PRA based upon the volume of calls that they allegedly received.
The Minnesota consumers alleged that PRA called them 38 times during a 21 day period including ten (10) calls during one day while attempting to collect a Target account which had not been paid since 1999. The consumers probably have a reasonable chance of convincing a jury that PRA intended to annoy or harass them if placed ten (10) calls during one day.
The Minnesota couple’s allegations have a reasonable chance of prevailing at trial. Does a debt collector really have to call ten times during a day?
Consumers who are receiving calls from Portfolio Recovery Associates about “zombie debts” are welcome to describe their experiences in the comments section.
If you are a Florida resident who is receiving calls from Portfolio Recovery Associates, contact me by completing the Collection Agency Harassment form in the right hand column of this page.
If you are a Florida resident, you are also invited to call my office.
I will contact you to discuss your situation and how I may be able to help you.
For an article about what debt collectors can and can not do when attempting to collect an account which is not only beyond the statute of limitations and the obsolescence period of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), click on the highlighted portion of this sentence.
(C) 2011 Donald E Petersen
All rights reserved
