Yes. BC Services Inc. (“BC Services”), a known debt collector, was sued for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The FDCPA is a federal statute that provides legal rights to consumers during the debt collection process. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:10-cv-02360-PAB-KMT.

The plaintiff alleged that he received calls from BC Services after they began to collect an alleged debt that he owed to a creditor. He alleged that he was told that the defendant was collecting for five separate accounts. Allegedly, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he retained the services of a law firm to aid him with this issue and that they should contact the firm for communication purposes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant told him that this law firm was just a debt settlement company and that they would not work with the firm.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that the law firm sent one cease and desist letter for each of the plaintiff’s accounts (five total) to BC Services, asking them to stop communications with the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he still received calls about the accounts even after these letters were sent. He alleged that the law firm then sent a second set of cease and desist letters but that the defendant still called him despite these letters. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that the law firm sent a third round of letters. He alleged that the defendant kept on making collection calls to him and that each time he answered, he asked the defendant to speak with the law firm.

The plaintiff then alleged that one of the defendant’s employees called him to tell him that they would not work with the law firm because they were connected to a settlement company. Allegedly, the plaintiff was told that BC Services had a policy where they could not speak with the law firm. The plaintiff alleged that he told the employee that the defendant should abide by the cease and desist letters to which the employee replied that the defendant would take legal action against the plaintiff if he did not make a payment.

Furthermore, the plaintiff then alleged that one of his attorneys called BC Services and was told by an employee that the defendant would not deal with the law firm, only with the client. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s employee again informed his attorney that the defendant would not work with the law firm. He alleged that after this call, he was still receiving collection calls for his alleged debts.

The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendant violated the FDCPA. Specifically, he alleged that the following actions were unlawful: speaking to a consumer after being made aware that the consumer is represented by an attorney, behaving in a manner that would harass or abuse a consumer, causing a consumer’s phone to ring repeatedly, and threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken, among other actions.

Another federal lawsuit was filed against BC Services in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In this case, the defendant was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:15-cv-01823-JLK.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her in order to collect upon an alleged debt but that she never gave her consent to be called on any device. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her at least fifty-three times, sometimes as often as five times a day. She alleged that on the times when she picked up the defendant’s calls, she asked that they stop all phone contact with her but that they continued to call her. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant requested that she borrow money from others to pay off her debt and that they would continue to call unless she paid off her debt in full. She also alleged that she sent the defendant a written request to cease communications via fax but that calls still came from the defendant after the receipt of her request. The plaintiff alleged that the calls from the defendant were made using an automated dialer system. The plaintiff alleged that by engaging in conduct that harassed her, calling her repeatedly, and calling her after she asked them to cease communication, the defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA.

In another case that occurred in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, BC Services was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:10-cv-00115-WDM-KMT.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she was called multiple times by the defendant who sought payment of an alleged medical debt that she owed. She alleged that the defendant placed calls to her cell phone as well as to her workplace phone. The plaintiff alleged that she asked the defendant to stop making calls to her place of employment. She then alleged that despite her request, the defendant continued to call her at work. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that in a phone call with an employee of the defendant, she asked to speak with the employee’s supervisor who then cursed at her and spoke to her in an impolite way. The plaintiff alleged that she authorized payments to the defendant but that they tried to collect more money from her than was authorized. She alleged that the following actions, among other actions, of the defendant violated the FDCPA: calling her at her place of employment after she asked them to stop, using obscene and profane language, causing her phone to ring with the intent of harassing her, using unconscionable means to collect a debt, and attempting to collect a debt not authorized by the original agreement.

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.