Source: https://www.creditreportproblems.com/pennsylvania-complaint-nco-financial-systems/
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 09:43:27
Document Index: 596109708

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 64']

Complaint Against NCO Financial Systems for Harassing Consumer
Pennsylvania Complaint Against NCO Financial Systems for Harassing Consumer Through Automatic Phone Calls to Cell Phone for Debt Not Owed
October 6, 2011 Uncategorized No Comments
This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer for Defendant’s violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.(“TCPA”) and other state laws.
Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in MT.
Defendant NCO Financial Systems, Inc. is a business entity that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and which has a principal place of business located at 507 Prudential Road, Horsham, PA 19044. The principal purpose of Defendant is the collection of debts already in default using the mails and telephone, and Defendant regularly attempts to collect said debts.
At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant was hired to collect a debt allegedly owed to AES by Plaintiff (hereafter the “debt”).
At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had satisfied the debt, therefore, he did not owe the debt to Defendant.
At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant made use of an automatic telephone dialing system to contact Plaintiff on his cellular telephone.
At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff never gave express consent to Defendant to call his cellular telephone.
In or around September 2010, Defendant initially contacted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to coerce payment of the debt, with the intent to annoy, abuse or harass such persons contacted.
In or around October 2010, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to coerce payment of the debt, with the intent to annoy, abuse or harass such persons contacted. Defendant contacted Plaintiff while he was at work, and Plaintiff told Defendant’s representative that it was inconvenient for him to receive calls during business hours, that his employer prohibits such communications, and that he did not want to be called on his cellular telephone again. Plaintiff also told Defendant’s representative that he had satisfied the debt and owed nothing to Defendant.
Notwithstanding the above, and continuing through June 2011, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone multiple times per week, sometimes up to five times per day, using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to coerce payment of the debt with the intent to annoy, abuse, and harass such persons contacted. Defendant also called Plaintiff numerous times during business hours, despite the fact that Defendant knew Plaintiff’s employer prohibited such communications.
The Defendant acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by communicating with a consumer at an unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer.
The Defendant acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by communicating with the consumer at their place of employment when the Defendant knew or had reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits them from receiving such communications.
The Defendant acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner when they used false representations and deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt.
Defendant knew or should have known that its actions violated the FDCPA and the TCPA. Additionally, Defendant could have taken the steps necessary to bring its actions into compliance with the FDCPA and TCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review its actions to insure compliance with said laws.
As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has sustained actual damages, including, but not limited to, injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, invasion of privacy, damage to Plaintiff’s credit, out-of-pocket expenses, physical, emotional and mental pain and anguish and pecuniary loss and he will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, all to his great detriment and loss.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF- VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA
The above contacts by Defendant were “communications” relating to a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(2) and 1692a(5) of the FDCPA.
Defendant violated the FDCPA. Defendant’s violations include, but are not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(a)(3), 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10) and 1692f as evidenced by the following conduct:
(a) Communicating with persons at an unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient;
(b) Communicating with the consumer at their place of employment when the Defendant knew or had reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits them from receiving such communications;
(c) Engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse such person in connection with the collection of a debt;
(e) Falsely representing the amount, character or legal status of the debt; and
(f) Otherwise using false, deceptive, misleading and unfair or unconscionable means to collect any debt.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF- VIOLATION OF THE TCPA
Defendant initiated a myriad of telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.
Defendant initiated these automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system, which had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using random or sequential number generator as defined by § 227(a)(1) of the TCPA.
Defendant violated the TCPA. Defendant’s violations include, but are not limited to, violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B), 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(A) and 47 C.F.R.§ 64.1200 et seq. as evidenced by the following conduct:
(a) initiating telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using artificial or prerecorded voices to deliver messages without Plaintiff’s express consent; and
(b) initiating telephone calls to Plaintiff using an automated telephone dialing system that was not in compliance with the technical and procedural standards prescribed by the TCPA.
Defendant’s acts as described above were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, wanton and negligent disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the law and with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the debt.
The acts and/or omissions of Defendant were done unfairly, unlawfully, intentionally, deceptively and fraudulently and absentbona fide error, express consent from the Plaintiff, lawful right, legal defense legal justification or legal excuse.
As a result of the above violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff has suffered the losses and damages as set forth above entitling Plaintiff’s to an award of statutory, actual and treble damages.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF- INVASION OF PRIVACY
Defendant, by repeatedly contacting Plaintiff during business hours on his cellular telephone after being told that he had satisfied the debt, that such calls were inconvienent and that his employer prohibited such communications, constitutes an invasion of privacy.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims compensatory, punitive and all other forms of cognizable damages against Defendant and judgment in their favor, plus lawful interest thereon.
(c) Treble damages;;
(f) Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Archives Select Month December 2019 November 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 December 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 August 2010 April 2010 July 2009 June 2009 April 2009