CCS - Credit Control Services has been successfully sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act New Castle Delaware

In the continuing saga of this company, I see that they have been sued in the past for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Here is an excerpt of the case: Note: This company is CCS (USA) Inc. out of Delaware and does business in various states under various names, such as Credit Control Services, Inc. and Credit Collection Services, Inc.:


"United States District Court,

D. Massachusetts.

Pierre MARTIN and Kevin L. Nelson, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Gerald SANDS; Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a/ Credit Collection

Services; Daniel W. Goldstone; and Goldstone & Sudalter, P.C., Defendants.

No. 98-10281-JLT.

July 29, 1999.



Consumers brought action against collection agency and other defendants, alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state law. Defendants moved to amend their answer and both parties moved for partial summary judgment. The District Court, Tauro, J., held that: (1) defendants would be permitted to amend answer; and (2) collection letters falsely indicating that law firm would be involved in collecting plaintiffs' debts violated FDCPA...
Mary M. Sullivan, Sullivan, Sullivan & Pinta, Boston, MA, Robert P. Reske, Joseph Michael Eichberger, Jerome G. McSherry & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Gerald Sands, Credit Control Services, Inc...

Plaintiffs claim that beginning in 1996, CCS sent collection letters containing illegal threats and misrepresentations to thousands of debtors. The letters, received by Plaintiffs Martin and Nelson on September 3, 1996, and October 4, 1996, respectively, purported to be "hard copies" of letters sent to the "Law Offices of Goldstone and Sudalter, P.C." from CCS, and read as follows:

*198 The above referenced account has been assigned to your firm for legal review and coordination. In compliance with standard procedure, unless your office is in receipt of full payment or appropriate dispute documentation by return mail, an individual case sign-off report should be prepared for creditor approval, assigning either the Law Offices of Goldstone and Sudalter, P.C., or forwarding counsel, representation in the recovery of this seriously delinquent obligation...

Before the court are Defendants Sands and CCS' Motion for Leave to Amend their answer, and the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court finds that Defendant CCS has violated 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, and M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2...
Unfair and Deceptive Practices Under M.G.L.Ch. 93 2

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants CCS and Sands violated M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 because violations of the FDCPA are per se violations of M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 in accordance with the Attorney General's Recommendations. See 940 CMR 3.16(4).

[9] On its face, 940 CMR 3.16(4) supports Plaintiffs' argument that a violation of the FDCPA is a per se violation of M.G.L.Ch. 93A(2). 940 CMR 3.16 provides that: "Without limiting the scope of any other rule, regulation or statute, an act or practice is a violation of M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 if: ... (4) it violates ... the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act [of which the FDCPA is a part] ...." The Attorney General's regulations have the force of substantive law. See Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762, 407 N.E.2d 297, 299 (1980) (holding that the Attorney General's recommendations as to M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 have the force of substantive law pursuant to M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2(c)).

Therefore, since Defendants have violated 1692e(10), they have also violated M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2.

Unfair and Deceptive Practices Under M.G.L.Ch. 93 2

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants CCS and Sands violated M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 because violations of the FDCPA are per se violations of M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 in accordance with the Attorney General's Recommendations. See 940 CMR 3.16(4).

[9] On its face, 940 CMR 3.16(4) supports Plaintiffs' argument that a violation of the FDCPA is a per se violation of M.G.L.Ch. 93A(2). 940 CMR 3.16 provides that: "Without limiting the scope of any other rule, regulation or statute, an act or practice is a violation of M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 if: ... (4) it violates ... the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act [of which the FDCPA is a part] ...." The Attorney General's regulations have the force of substantive law. See Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762, 407 N.E.2d 297, 299 (1980) (holding that the Attorney General's recommendations as to M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2 have the force of substantive law pursuant to M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2(c)).

Therefore, since Defendants have violated 1692e(10), they have also violated M.G.L.Ch. 93A 2..."

Justice
Harmony, Rhode Island
U.S.A.