Yes. Enhanced Recovery Company (“ERC”) is a known debt collector according to the definition provided in the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted in order to provide legal rights to consumers during the debt collection process. ERC was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:11-cv-00509-MSK-MJW.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s daughter incurred a debt which was transferred to ERC for collection. The plaintiff alleged that she received a phone call from the defendant who informed her that she owed a debt. The plaintiff alleged that she told the defendant that she did not owe the debt and asked the defendant to cease communication with her. She alleged that the defendant still called her even after she asked it to stop. The plaintiff alleged that in one of the calls to her phone, her daughter came on the phone to tell the defendant that she could not pay the debt and to once again ask them to stop their calls. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to call her after this request. She alleged that in total, she received more than twenty calls from the defendant and that in each of these calls, the defendant informed her of the amount of debt allegedly owed by her daughter. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by calling her after she asked for communication to be ceased and by communicating with her about her daughter’s debt, amongst other actions.

A class action lawsuit was filed against ERC in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 8:21-cv-00966-SDM-TGW.

The plaintiff in this case allegedly incurred a debt that was sold to the defendant for collection purposes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent him a collection letter in order to request payment for the debt. He alleged that the defendant did not prepare the letter on its own and instead, provided the plaintiff’s information to a commercial mail house. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant communicated to the mail house the plaintiff’s status as a debtor, the total amount of the alleged debt, as well as other pieces of the plaintiff’s personal information. The plaintiff alleged that the mail house then entered this information into a template in order to create the collection letter used by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that because he never consented to sharing his personal information, the disclosure of his information by the defendant constituted unlawful communication with an unauthorized third party. The plaintiff alleged that due to the unlawful communication as well as the use of unfair means during its debt collection process, the defendant acted in a way that violated the guidelines of the FDCPA.

ERC was sued in another class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff alleged that ERC violated the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 9:18-cv-80688-RLR.

In this case, the plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt to a bank. The plaintiff then alleged that he received a collection letter from the defendant in regard to this alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that this letter was deceptive because it did not identify the current creditor of the debt. Allegedly, the letter listed a creditor, a department store, and an “Original Creditor,” the bank, but failed to make clear the name of the current creditor. The plaintiff alleged that he could not determine as to who he owed the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made a false and misleading representation and used unfair or unconscionable collection means by sending a deceptive collection letter. He alleged that the defendant’s actions were in violation of the FDCPA.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the defendant was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 0:13-cv-60951-KAM.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that he received both a collection letter and a collection call from the defendant regarding an alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that the debt in question was included in a previous bankruptcy filing and was completely discharged. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not have a right to collect the debt due to the fact that it was legally discharged. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA because amongst other actions, they falsely represented the status of a debt, threatened to take action they cannot legally take, and threatened to communicate false credit information.

In the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in the Springfield Division, ERC was sued for allegedly violating the FDCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The plaintiff alleged that when checking her credit reports, she saw that there was an account being collected by the defendant for an alleged debt incurred in April 2013. The plaintiff alleged that she logged into ERC’s website in order to obtain further information about this account. She alleged that she found out the creditor, total balance, and default date of the alleged debt. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant offered her a number of payment options on the website.

The plaintiff alleged that the statute of limitations for this debt had already expired so the debt in question was actually a time-barred debt. She alleged that even though the debt was time-barred, the defendant did not inform her that the debt’s statute of limitations had passed or that making a payment on the debt could reset its statute of limitations. The plaintiff alleged that by attempting to collect an expired debt and by failing to inform her of the debt’s expiration, the defendant used false or misleading means to collect a debt and thus, acted in violation of the FDCPA.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages.

The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer; as they do not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor.

If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.