Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Michigan plaintiff Sue T. is suing the debt collections agency United Collection Bureau Inc. (UCB) for allegedly practicing deceptive and illegal debt collection tactics against her. Sue claims that the company directly and willfully violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits companies from using deceitful and intimidating harassment to collect on a debt.
While the plaintiff and her husband did incur a debt in the past several years, mostly due to personal, family, or household expenses, it does not give the companies the legal right to harass Sue or her family. In the past, Sue and her husband had regularly paid their debts in a timely manner, but reportedly hit a financial snag when a severe medical bill was incurred.
Overview of FDCPA and TCPA Allegations
Sometime from between when the debt was first incurred and when Sue filed this United Collection Bureau FDCPA lawsuit, her debt had been transferred to several different finance companies, eventually landing with United Collection Bureau. Once the debt was assigned to UCB, the debt collection agency allegedly immediately starting calling Sue on her cell phone. According to court documents, Sue did not give permission for the debt collection agency to contact her by phone, and never consented for the bill collector to contact her family members.
Additionally, her debt collection lawsuit claims that the debt collection agency left pre-recorded voicemail messages on her cell phone, which is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In addition to the pre-recorded voice messages, the caller ID for UCB read only “419”, making it impossible for Sue to reach the defendant when using this number. Under the TCPA, it is unlawful to contact any American consumer using a pre-recorded voice system or automatic telephone dialing system. In every marketing call, there must be a person who is able to identify themselves and the company they represent, and they must be able to provide a valid return number as wells as provide the recipient the option of being placed on their do-not-call registry.
Even when Sue did get to speak with an actual representative from UCB, the representative would ask for an individual named “Stephanie”; the plaintiff repeatedly told UCB that “Stephanie” did not live with her and that they were not calling the correct number. According to court documents, UCB allegedly contacted Sue twice during November 2014 only days apart and there was reportedly a pre-recorded voice message when the call was answered. The defendant allegedly proceeded to call the plaintiff five times between the last two weeks of January 2015 and the first two weeks of February 2015, with the pre-recorded voice answering each time.
The debt collection harassment finally reached its peak on March 6, 2015, when Sue answered a call from UCB and found herself talking to a woman who identified herself as a UCB representative. According to the debt collection lawsuit, Sue informed this woman that she and her husband were represented by a debt collection attorney, giving this woman the name and phone number of the debt lawyer. During this call, Sue finally had the opportunity to ask UCB to stop calling her, to which the company complied.
However, the compliant action has come too late for the plaintiff, as she and her family have allegedly suffered four years of debt collection abuse through unsolicited phone calls. On numerous occasions that line would simply disconnect when she answered, if not met with the artificial voice. Additionally, Sue claims that the debt collection agency used the excuse of “Stephanie” to repeatedly badger her family for her incurred debt.
According to her United Collection Bureau FDPCA lawsuit, Sue and her husband have suffered anxiety, sleep deprivation, and other forms of emotional stress due to this debt collection harassment. So for allegedly violating both the FDCPA and TCPA, Sue and her family are suing United Collection Bureau. The statutory damages the plaintiff seeks amounts to $1,000 for the FDCPA charges, but if she pursues charges of TCPA violations, the additional damages can total $1,500 per unsolicited phone call, if UCB is found in willful violation of the TCPA.
This United Collection Bureau FDCPA lawsuit is Case No. 1:15-cv-00363-JTN, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.
Join a Free Unfair Debt Collection Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
If a lender or debt collector engaged in unfair debt collection practices, you may have a legal claim and could be owed compensation for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
DISCLAIMER: Debt collection itself is not illegal. However, debt collection firms collecting on consumer debts must adhere to the FDCPA. Even though debt attorneys are investigating these companies, their debt collection practices may be legal.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
One thought on Mich. Woman Sues Debt Collections Agency for FDCPA Violations
Its about time, get them Sue. Stick it to these chumps. Telemarketers, collection agwncies, all think they are above the law. Im proud to know you stood up for yourself. I hope you win big. All debt collection agencies need to get on board with the law. I have a 815 credit score and yes people do fall behind but doesnt give anyone the right to break the law.