Allied Credit Consultants, LLC

Allied Credit Consultants is an Orlando based Florida debt collector with an office located at: 4700 Millenia Blvd., Suite #175, Orlando, FL 32839.

In a lawsuit filed in United States District Court in Orlando, the consumer alleged that during February of 2016, he received 3 telephone calls from Allied Credit Consultants and the originating telephone number was 888-855-7131. The first caller to the consumer from Allied Credit Consultants identified himself as "Scott Stevens," Account Director from Allied Credit Consultants and paralegal. In a second call, the caller identified himself as "Michael Bennett" from "offices of Roth Morgan and Associates, and that his delinquent account had been "assigned to legal recovery." Angel Rivera, an employee of Allied Credit Consultants used the pseudonym "Michael Bennett" in calling the consumer. Another caller used the pseudonym "Scot Stevens" in calling the consumer.  In the telephone calls:

a.  Allied Credit Consultants told Plaintiff that if he did not set up a payment plan that they would be sending my information out to some kind of credit bureau that would intercept money out of any bank account he had; and

b.  Allied Credit Consultants told Plaintiff that they would garnish his wages from his work and out of his paycheck.

c.  Allied Credit Consultants communicated with a Plaintiff by telephone in a manner that gave the false impression and appearance that they were associated with an attorney. All of these acts, if proven, constitute violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Allied Credit Consultants, LLC

Allied Credit Consultants is an Orlando based Florida debt collector with an office located at: 4700 Millenia Blvd., Suite #175, Orlando, FL 32839.

In a lawsuit filed in United States District Court in Orlando, the consumer alleged that during February of 2016, he received 3 telephone calls from Allied Credit Consultants and the originating telephone number was 888-855-7131. The first caller to the consumer from Allied Credit Consultants identified himself as "Scott Stevens," Account Director from Allied Credit Consultants and paralegal. In a second call, the caller identified himself as "Michael Bennett" from "offices of Roth Morgan and Associates, and that his delinquent account had been "assigned to legal recovery." Angel Rivera, an employee of Allied Credit Consultants used the pseudonym "Michael Bennett" in calling the consumer. Another caller used the pseudonym "Scot Stevens" in calling the consumer.  In the telephone calls:

a.  Allied Credit Consultants told Plaintiff that if he did not set up a payment plan that they would be sending my information out to some kind of credit bureau that would intercept money out of any bank account he had; and

b.  Allied Credit Consultants told Plaintiff that they would garnish his wages from his work and out of his paycheck.

c.  Allied Credit Consultants communicated with a Plaintiff by telephone in a manner that gave the false impression and appearance that they were associated with an attorney. All of these acts, if proven, constitute violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Consumer Protection from Unwanted Cellphone Calls

Recent headlines have drawn attention to a prevalent consumer complaint - unwanted cell phone calls. A class action lawsuit against Papa John’s involves franchises that sent customers a total of 500,000 unwanted text messages in early 2010 offering deals for pizza. Some of these texts were sent during the middle of the night. The lawsuit is based upon the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The TCPA was enacted into law to “protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers” by placing certain restrictions on the use of unsolicited, automated phone calls made by telemarketers who were “blasting” out advertising by the use of both “facsimile machines and automatic dialers. An essential requirement of a TCPA claim is that the phone call be sent to a cell phone by use of auto dialing technology which either (1) utilizes a so-called “random or sequential number generator” or (2) automatically leaves a prerecorded, as opposed to a live, message.

In the context of debt collection practices, creditors have contacted consumers by cell phones on a regular basis. If a debt collector is found to have violated the TCPA, the consumer is entitled to recover statutory damages of $500 per call, and up to $1500 per call if the violation is willful, without any cap on damages. Claims under the TCPA by consumers against debt collectors are frequently joined with actions brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

For more information, please visit us at Consumer Rights Orlando.

Plaintiff Accused by Court of Deliberately Defaulting on Debts to Create FDCPA Claims

The Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA), enacted in 1977, aimed to "eliminate abusive debt collection practices.” Among many other reforms, the FDCPA prohibits harassing or oppressive conduct on the part of debt collectors, and it requires debt collectors to provide notice to debtors of their right to require verification of a debt. Both the text of the FDCPA and its legislative history emphasize the intent of Congress to address the previously common and severe problem of abusive debt collection practices and to protect unsophisticated consumers from unscrupulous debt collection tactics. The Act, as a U.S. District court recently stated, was not intended to enable plaintiffs to bring serial lawsuits against different debt collector defendants alleging various and often insignificant deviations from the Act’s provisions.

In Ehrich v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134142 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2012), accused the plaintiff in that case of abusing the FDCPA by, among other things, filing a total of nine complaints, including the present case, over the past seven years. The court stated that the record suggests that the plaintiff may be deliberately defaulting on his debts in order to provoke collection letters which are then combed by his lawyer for technical violations of the FDCPA.

The facts of this unique case are that Ehrich filed a complaint against Credit Protection Association, L.P., alleging violations of the FDCPA. Ehrich alleged that CPA sent him a collection note seeking to recover a debt owed to Time Warner Cable Company. Ehrich did not dispute the validity of the debt CPA sought to collect, nor did he claim that the primary text of the letter violates the FDCPA. Rather, Ehrich based his claim on two Spanish sentences at the top and bottom of the letter.

Printed at the top of the letter is the phrase “aviso importante de cobro,” which Ehrich, relying on a Google translation, translated as “important collection notice.” At the bottom of the collection notice were three Spanish phrases: “Opciones de pago,” “Llame” followed by a phone number, and “Envíe MoneyGram,” which Ehrich translated as “Payment options,” “Call" and “Send MoneyGram.” Ehrich, who does not speak Spanish, claimed that the notice’s inclusion of these Spanish phrases without a Spanish translation of the FDCPA-mandated disclosures and notices provided in English could mislead Spanish-speaking consumers and cause them to inadvertently waive their rights under the FDCPA.

CPA moved for summary judgment which was granted by the court based on lack of standing. The basis for the Court’s ruling was that the collection notice contained all disclosures required by the FDCPA and that Ehrich fully understood it. Therefore, he suffered no injury sufficient to support standing.