Home > 2015 > Managing Debt

What Happens to a Debt Collector That Gets Shut Down

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 1 Comment

Travell Thomas is desperately trying to save his business, or at least part of it. His debt collection firm, Four Star Resolution, was raided during the morning on Feb. 11, as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission. Employees were told to leave immediately. A temporary restraining order now prevents Thomas — and any company employee — from entering the premises, seeing any company files or accessing any financial records. Employees can’t be paid and consumers can’t make payments, Thomas says. The lawsuit has thrown the firm, among the largest in South Buffalo, into chaos.

“The penalties sought….far exceed what is equitable and fair,” Thomas says in an affidavit filed in support of a motion to lift or amend the temporary restraining order. “As things stand now, even the consumers are being harmed because they can reach no one to pay their debts.”

Four Star is accused of repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including impersonating law enforcement officials and threatening consumers with arrest. The FTC accused the firm of operating a “boiler room” where agents would say almost anything to get consumers to pay up. In its lawsuit, the FTC said one Four Star employee identified himself as “Detective Jeff Ramsey,” and warned consumers to make sure there were no firearms or “loose dogs” in advance of his arrival later that day to discuss a “pending bench warrant.” Four Star employees are also accused of refusing to provide consumers with proof of outstanding debts, and a stream of intimidation and name calling, including “f—ing no good liar,” “idiot,” “dummy,” ”piece of scum,” “thief,” “dirtbag,” “scumbag,” or “loser.”

A federal judge issued the temporary restraining order based on the FTC’s case. Since the order was signed, Four Star officials have only been permitted access to their offices for three hours on Saturday, March 7.

The Debt Collector Responds

In a series of affidavits signed by Thomas and Four Star’s compliance officer, Ronald Williams, the firm concedes there were problems, but claims the FTC has been heavy-handed in the abrupt shutdown of the business. Four Star’s lawyer Linda Joseph provided Credit.com with a series of documents her clients planned to file in an attempt to convince a U.S. district judge to ease restrictions on the firm. An FTC spokesperson said the agency would not comment on ongoing litigation, but the affidavits provide an unusually candid glimpse into the world of debt collectors, how they see themselves and the challenges of their jobs.

“I am not pretending that Four Star’s operations did not have problems that need to be improved upon, but debt collections a difficult business and I do not think there is any company that can say it has a perfect record,” Williams writes. “It also is a necessary business that is essential to maintaining the cost of credit to all consumers.”

At its core, debt collection isn’t complicated. It usually boils down to an interaction between a collector and a consumer. Both Thomas and Williams talk about the challenge of rogue employees, who can break the law during interactions even after they are forced to sign promises that they won’t. Employees would even use scripts taken from former employers that encouraged law-breaking, they claim.

“Every day I endeavored to confiscate rogue scripts and I reprimanded employees on their tone,” Williams said. Some were fired for breaking the rules. “I would also point (out), however, that it is impossible to catch all employees who might be violating the law and I, like all of us, am not perfect.”

Four Star employee wages were modest. According to the affidavit, “team members” were paid $10-$12 per hour, managers earned $20 hourly, and Williams was paid $25,000. The firm also paid performance-based bonuses.

Bonuses could conceivably create incentives for collection agents to be aggressive with consumers, though the FTC doesn’t accuse Four Star of that in its lawsuit.

Thomas admits he didn’t do a good enough job of managing.

“I concede that there are managers who have been deficient and whom I have not sufficiently supervised because of other business opportunities in which I was involved at the time,” he said. But he points to several steps he’s taken to keep Four Star on the right side of the law, including hiring Williams as compliance officer after a prior investigation into the firm’s activities.

Williams and Thomas, along with lawyer Joseph, remarked repeatedly how surprised they were at the FTC’s swift action to shut down the firm’s operations. The firm had separately been approached by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Better Business Bureau and worked to remediate those complaints.

“If I had been approached by Plaintiffs and informed of other issues that needed to be addressed, I would certainly have addressed them,” Thomas said.

Lawyer Joseph was much more blunt, calling the FTC’s actions “draconian…freezing the business assets, much less freezing individual funds needed for procurement of counsel and family support.”

She also complained that investigators made a mess out of Four Star offices, with “papers and debris on the floor.”

“The Plaintiffs could have simply asked for more injunctive relief,” she wrote. The FTC seems “more intent on shutting down the business than in looking after the protection of consumers.”

Trying to Stay in Business

Four Star wants to reopen a part of its collection operations in order to fund some employee salaries, and to continue collecting consumer payments. Joseph argues that consumers who are trying to clear their credit reports of debts cannot do so while Four Star is not operating, so the restraining order hurts consumers and employees.

“If the Plaintiffs prevail, nothing will be left to recover,” she said. “The real motive was not to preserve assets of the business for recovery by plaintiffs or consumers, but to drive the defendants out of business.”

Joseph planned to file her reply to the FTC lawsuit late last week. It’s unclear when the court might rule on any change to the temporary restraining order. For now, Thomas says he is trying to help some employees stay afloat — he paid Williams’ $1,200 mortgage this month, according to his affidavit. Meanwhile, both men are trying to make sure they have a future in the debt collection business.

“I am not perfect. I second guess some of my own decisions, but I know deep in my heart I was trying to do my best,” Williams writes. “I have tried sincerely to educate myself, constantly reading the updates from the CFPB, even though they are very confusing and constantly evolving. Now add all the decisions being made on the federal bench, regarding debt collection cases, this is very confusing. … Just because we may not have been clear on certain procedures, or verbiage, or daily mandates from different agencies or did not understand the corporate structure issues or which the FTC complains does not in my opinion mean we should be destroyed.”

More on Managing Debt:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Jeremiah

    lets be serious people were fire for NOT using those scripts and saying those things! he encouraged that type of collection practices to pad his bank account to play poker!

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team