Yes. BC Services, Inc. (“BC Services”) is a debt collector that was sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the Colorado Springs Division for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal statute that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in certain actions during the debt collection process. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:11-cv-01353-PAB-BNB.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her in order to collect on an alleged medical debt that she owed. She alleged that in this phone call, the defendant threatened to take legal action against the plaintiff and garnish her wages if she did not make arrangements to pay her debt. The plaintiff alleged she set up payment arrangements as a result of the defendant’s threat. The plaintiff alleged that because the defendant did not have the ability to acquire a judgment or garnish her wages, the defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA by threatening to take action that they could not legally take.

In another federal lawsuit from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, BC Services was also sued for allegedly violating the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:11-cv-02964-RBJ.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant served her with notice of a lawsuit in relation to an alleged debt. According to the plaintiff, allegedly after she received the notice of a lawsuit, she called the defendant in order to make payment arrangements. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant told her that it would garnish her wages unless she could commit to paying a $150 monthly payment as well as a $200 upfront payment. She alleged that even though she let the defendant know that she could not afford this payment plan, she still agreed to it due to the threats that the defendant had made. The plaintiff then alleged that she checked her finances and confirmed that she could not afford the monthly payment so she made another call to the defendant in which they allowed her to enter into a less expensive payment plan ($75 upfront payment and $75 per month).

The plaintiff alleged that after that phone call, the defendant sent her a letter which informed her that it would charge her card for the original $200 upfront payment amount. She alleged that she called the defendant to notify them of this error and that the defendant verified the updated $75 payment amount, confirming that the higher amount would not be charged. The plaintiff then alleged that a few days later, a charge for $200 was declined on her card. She alleged that she called the defendant after seeing this failed transaction and that once again, the defendant confirmed her $75 per month payment agreement.

The plaintiff alleged that the next month she received correspondence from the defendant which stated that it would charge her an amount higher than the agreed upon $75. She alleged that upon calling the defendant, it stated that her payment plan was $150 and not $75 like it had confirmed before. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that when she asked the defendant to provide a written statement of the $75 agreement, it informed her that it does not use written agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant then told her that it would get rid of the $150 plan and only have the $75 plan on her record.

She alleged that the defendant’s behavior could be seen as offensive to reasonable consumers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant falsely represented the amount of the debt, unlawfully threatened to garnish her wages, and used deceptive means to collect the debt, among other actions, and in doing so, violated the laws set forth in the FDCPA.

In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, another federal lawsuit was filed against BC Services for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:14-cv-00315-CMA-BNB.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she incurred an alleged debt that she disputed and after she defaulted on the debt, the debt was assigned to BC Services for collection purposes. She then alleged that the defendant filed a lawsuit against her which resulted in a default judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant served a writ of garnishment on her employer which asked them to withhold part of her wages for a specified amount of time.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she contacted the defendant in order to set up a payment arrangement but that the defendant informed her that she could not make an arrangement while the writ was effective. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant told her that it could not stop the writ so she had to wait until the writ expired to create a payment arrangement. The plaintiff alleged that these claims by the defendant were false.

The plaintiff alleged that after the effective period of the writ ended, her employer continued to pay a portion of her wages to the defendant and that the defendant was aware of the fact that it was receiving her wages even after the writ had expired. She then alleged that she contacted the defendant to inform it of the illegal garnishment and to set up a payment arrangement for the debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not allow her to create a payment plan and instead, notified her that it had reinstated the garnishment and had sent a new writ to her employer. The plaintiff alleged that these statements were false.

The plaintiff alleged that many of the defendant’s actions constituted violations of the FDCPA. Specifically, among other actions, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant used false representations in connection with the writ and the garnishment of her wages, used unfair or unconscionable means by continuing to receive payments after the expiration of the writ, and also used unfair or unconscionable means by refusing to let her enter a payment plan for the debt.

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.