Home > 2016 > Identity Theft

A Debt Collector Came After Me for $36 of Girl Scout Cookies

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

It doesn’t matter how much of a morning person you are: No one enjoys answering an unexpected knock on the door at 7 a.m., let alone from someone you don’t know. Now imagine the stranger is there to tell you you’re being sued over a debt that isn’t yours. That’s a rough way to start the day.

For Rich Snapp, that was the morning of Sept. 16, 2015. It was a bad Wednesday, but it was just the beginning of a bizarre and frustrating ordeal that lasted more than seven months and involved a persistent debt collector, the local police department, a (possibly) fictional thief who goes by “Pistol Pete” and the Girl Scouts of Utah.

Snapp was a victim of fraud: Someone used his old checkbook to buy $36 of Girl Scout cookies, the check bounced and the Girl Scouts of Utah hired a debt collector to pursue the person who appeared to have written the bad check. In fact, they went after Snapp for $455.89, including the original $36, plus interest, attorney fees damages and other fees a collector can charge under Utah law.

“I’m annoyed, mostly because, obviously, I didn’t do anything wrong to begin with,” Snapp said in an interview with Credit.com in July, after the court action over the debt had been dismissed. “This weighed on my conscience, if I was going to have to do more or if I was going to get into trouble.”

The situation bothered Snapp on many levels. The early morning court summons, unpleasant phone calls with the debt collector, having to prove he was a victim of fraud, the months of waiting for a resolution — he felt he was wronged, but a Credit.com investigation didn’t find any instances of wrongdoing on the part of the debt collector. What we found is something many people who have had similar issues know to be true: Even when a debt collector does everything by the book, it’s often still a horrible experience for the consumer.

Don’t Underestimate the Threat of Identity Theft

Before any of this could happen, someone had to take Snapp’s checkbook. In December 2014, Snapp moved, and during this process, he found an old checkbook from a closed account. Because everything in the checkbook was no longer accurate — everything except his name — he tossed it in the trash.

“I probably should have shredded it,” Snapp said. “I didn’t really think about it, because it was an account that had been closed a year.”

As he loaded his moving truck, Snapp saw a man with a flashlight rifling through the dumpster behind his apartment complex.

“I actually went upstairs to look up (laws) on the internet, because I was a little bit miffed. I knew I had just chucked my stuff in there,” Snapp said. “There was no law against it in the city I was in. I was pretty sure I didn’t throw out anything that was a big deal.”

A few months later, Snapp got a call from the Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake informing him they had found one of Snapp’s checks on a man who had been arrested. The check for $350 was written out to and endorsed by the man, according to the police report, and the man told the officers the check was given to him by a man known as “Pistol Pete.”

The police report is dated April 18, 2015. What Snapp didn’t know is that a month earlier, someone had also used his checks for something else: to satisfy a hankering for Girl Scout cookies.

The Girl Scouts & the Debt Collector

A lot of companies don’t accept checks because they’re a favorite tool among fraudsters. A lot of time passes between a merchant accepting a check and the merchant’s bank processing the payment, giving someone plenty of time to walk away with the goods before a seller realizes they’ve been stiffed. But checks are an important part of the Girl Scout cookie business: not everyone has cash on hand, and Scouts aren’t generally walking around with a mobile point-of-sale system to instantly process a credit card payment.

That’s the direction they’re trying to go, according to Janet Frasier, CEO of the Girl Scouts of Utah, but until they are equipped to take electronic payments, checks are a good option.

That means taking on the risk that people will buy cookies with bad checks.

“The actual decision to accept checks or credit cards or cash is made primarily at the troop level and the community level,” Frasier said. “However, it has been our practice that if checks were accepted by girls and their troops that, should there be bad checks, the council (the Girl Scouts of Utah) … would be responsible. We don’t leave the girls liable for those funds.”

Frasier said the policy to pursue people who write bad checks to the Scouts predates her tenure at the organization, but it’s based on the belief that “when people don’t honor their check, that is basically taking money directly from those girls.”

The intended message: don’t take money from little girls. But to someone receiving a debt collection notice over a $36 check for cookies, it can come across another way: petty. On top of that, Frasier said that the number of bad checks that come in is “extremely low” and the amount of money they write off in losses is “extremely, extremely low.”

So why even put forth the effort to go after people?

“That’s a good question,” Frasier said. “I think that situations like this are exactly what triggers me as a executive to think that we need to go back and look at processes and review how we’re currently looking at things.”

But for the time being, that’s the policy, and if you write a bad check to a girl selling cookies for the Girl Scouts of Utah, you’re going to find yourself dealing with Cherrington Law Firm, who collects for them.

The Rough Business of Debt Collection

Because the contact information on Snapp’s old checks was out of date, it’s unsurprising that the debt collector had trouble tracking him down, and if early debt collection attempts are unsuccessful, the next step is sometimes legal action. The summons Snapp received on Sept. 16, 2015, stated he had 21 days to respond to the summons, and he called Cherrington Law Firm the same day.

He said the conversations got heated. He said the debt collector wanted personal information to confirm Snapp’s identity, which Snapp didn’t feel comfortable giving, and eventually, the person hung up on him. He called the police department and asked for the file number on the police report detailing the “Pistol Pete” stolen check incident, but when he called back the debt collector with the file number, the person on the phone said it wasn’t sufficient to prove he was a victim of fraud. He would need to obtain a hard copy of the report (meaning he had to go to the police station and pay for copies of the records) and send it to them. This time, Snapp hung up in frustration.

“I need the consumer’s help to show me that it’s fraud,” said Lacey Cherrington, an attorney and owner of the debt collection company. “Until I can see information from the consumer that it’s not their signature, then I have to continue to assume it’s theirs.”

Cherrington said she couldn’t comment on the specifics of Snapp’s case but said police departments often aren’t willing to give copies of police reports to third-party debt collectors — the consumer will have an easier time getting that. As far as Snapp’s frustration for having to pay for the police report ($10) and sending it by certified mail to the debt collector, Cherrington said she is sympathetic to that feeling but pointed out the consumer isn’t the only one caught up in the fraud.

“The consumer needs to understand that the original creditor had to pay bank fees for the returned check,” Cherrington said. Referring to the out-of-pocket costs consumers may incur in proving they’re victims of fraud: “That’s a risk we all take to have to show that a debt is not ours.”

What You Can Do About Debt-Collector Woes

It wasn’t just the fees and the trips to the clerk’s office and the police station that made Snapp unhappy. He didn’t understand how the debt collector could legally pursue him for more than $400, when the bad check was only $36 (and fraudulent). He researched the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and wondered if his rights had been violated at any point.

For example, Snapp was annoyed when the process server “pounded on his door” at 7:10 a.m., given that the FDCPA says a debt collector can’t call you before 8 a.m. in your time zone. But that was fair game: A process server isn’t a third-party debt collector and isn’t subject to the FDCPA.

Snapp said he felt like he was harassed every time he was on the phone with the collector, but tough talk isn’t necessarily harassment. (Regarding the tense conversations, Cherrington said: “If there was a phone call that the consumer felt got heated, it was simply us trying to gather the information the consumer needed to show that this was a fraudulent check.”)

After he submitted his written response contesting the debt on Sept. 16, the collector never again initiated contact — the three times they had contact after that, Snapp was the one who reached out. They never again contacted him until he received the written notice on May 16, 2016, that the action had been dismissed. (Cherrington said this case took longer than usual to resolve but declined to specify why.)

It’s an unsatisfying ending for everyone involved: Cherrington Law Firm got nowhere in resolving its client’s issue. The Girl Scouts of Utah are still out $36 (plus interest and whatever bank fees they incurred, hence the steep bill Snapp was facing). Snapp is worried this could happen again, because he threw out a nearly full checkbook. For the months it took to resolve this mess, he wondered if he was going to get in legal trouble for something he didn’t do. Meanwhile, somewhere in Utah, someone else got to enjoy a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies. The whole thing is pretty discouraging.

But there are a few things you can take away from this debacle: Shred everything. Keep good records. Know your rights when dealing with a debt collector, because even though it’s probably going to be unpleasant, debt collectors sometimes cross the line, and you could sue them for violating the FDCPA. Of course, taking legal action isn’t cheap, so you could also consider filing complaints with agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the Better Business Bureau. And, if you do owe a collector, it’s a good idea to learn how the debt may be affecting your credit. (You can pull your credit reports for free each year at AnnualCreditReport.com and view two of your credit scores for free each month on Credit.com.)

Image: MarkCoffeyPhoto

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.

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