Blog

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on February 15, 2017
In addition to consumer rights protection, our firm also handles civil rights matters related to police brutality. With the rise of popularity in cell phone videos and social media, such as “Facebook Live”, the public has grown to be much more aware of police brutality and other civil rights violations in their interaction with citizens. It is certainly a very scary and traumatic experience, but thankfully Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act exists to protect victims and allow the citizens to seek retribution for the damage that can be done.

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code allows anyone within the United States to sue a government official for violation of a constitutional right. In police brutality suits, this allows citizens to file a lawsuit against an officer who commits violations such as: 1) the Fourth Amendment (physical touching (even with bullets or a tazer) is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment) by using excessive force or by unlawfully detaining/arresting someone; 2) the Fifth Amendment, by intentionally refusing to read a suspect their Miranda rights and persisting at interrogations; or 3) the 14th Amendment, such as using racial slurs or verbal abuse based on race violating one’s right to equal protection.

These cases can undoubtedly become complicated based upon the legalities of immunity and whether constitutional and/or statutory rights have been violated by particular conduct. Consultation with an experienced attorney in these areas is vital. Our firm has filed two such lawsuits in the past as a result of allegations of excessive force and similar constitutional rights violations committed by San Diego Sheriff’s Deputies.

In one case, the allegations included a claim that a person with mental illness was drug off a tree stump by Sheriff’s Deputies that caused him to land face-first into a bed of cacti, and the Deputies proceeded to tazer him and allow the police canine to attack him without any threat of physical harm from the victim to the Deputies. That Complaint can be read by clicking HERE.

In another case, the lawsuit involves allegations that a Sheriff’s Deputy unlawfully detained a Top Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps and his female friend, and when the Marine verbally protested what appeared to be harassment the Deputy unlawfully escalated the situation to a point where the non-combative victim was physically beaten by all four Deputies, which caused the Marine to suffer a torn rotator cuff and abrasions/cuts to his face and fingers. That Complaint can be read by clicking HERE.

This type of unlawful behavior should not go unpunished. Citizens who do not pose a threat of violence to police officers deserve to have peaceful non-violent encounters, which help to foster trust and cooperation between the police and the communities. When the police adopt a militaristic “us versus them” approach to their daily interactions with the communities, then trust and communication are lost, and everyone loses.

If you or a loved one have experienced anything similar, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and whether they may have been violated.

DISCLAIMER: nothing in the above should be construed as legal advice. Proper legal advice can only be given in a confidential consultation where all facts and circumstances are discussed in full. The above should only be taken as anecdotal discussions for informational purposes.

Related Tags: civil rights, police brutality, 1983 lawsuit, excessive force, Deputy Sanders, Derek Sanders, Sanders excessive force, Sanders police brutality, San Diego Sheriffs, unlawful detention, unlawful arrest, civil liberties

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on January 25, 2017
As reported by the Washington Post on January 18, 2017 (the article can be read by clicking HERE), the student loan giant Navient was hit with three government lawsuits in one day for multiple consumer rights violations.

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel reported, “Among the most serious charges in the CFPB complaint is an allegation that Navient incentivized employees to encourage borrowers to postpone payments through forbearance, an option in which interest continues to accrue, rather than enroll them in an income-driven repayment plan that would avoid fees. As a result, the CFPB says Navient amassed $4 billion in interest charges to the principal balances of borrowers who were enrolled in multiple, consecutive forbearances from January 2010 to March 2015.”

With respect to the lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said “Navient has systematically and illegally failed borrowers at every stage of repayment.”

State Attorney Generals of Illinois and Washington also filed a lawsuit that, in addition to pursuing similar claims as the CFPB with respect to servicing violations, also accuse Navient (through its former parent company, Sallie Mae) of peddling “’risky and expensive’ subprime private student loans that carried high interest rates and fees”. AG Madison stated, “Navient and Sallie Mae saddle students with subprime loans that Sallie Mae designed to fail.”

As quoted by Douglas-Gabriel, “The lawsuits are full of deeply disturbing allegations,” said Rohit Chopra, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and the former student-loan point man at the CFPB. “If this is true, then the company’s actions may be responsible for some of the pileup of defaults that we’ve seen in recent years.”

Our firm at Semnar & Hartman, LLP has also recently filed suit against Navient. A copy of the Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. In this lawsuit, the consumer alleges that she paid off the loan with Navient in full, yet Navient proceeded to commit credit reporting violations by falsely reporting that the account had a current balance even after it had been paid in full, then falsely verified to Trans Union that the incorrect reporting was accurate, and also falsely reported to Experian that the account had been discharged in bankruptcy…. Thus, it appears that not even customers who pay their loans in full to Navient are free from their outrageous and abusive consumer violations.

If you also have concerns about the way you are being treated by Navient, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

Related Tags: Navient, fair credit reporting, credit reporting violations, consumer protection, fair debt collection practices, orange county consumer attorney, san diego consumer attorney, riverside consumer attorney, debt collection harassment

STUDENT LOAN GIANT NAVIENT HIT WITH THREE GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS IN ONE DAY
Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on January 25, 2017
As reported by the Washington Post on January 18, 2017 (the article can be read by clicking HERE), the student loan giant Navient was hit with three government lawsuits in one day for multiple consumer rights violations.

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel reported, “Among the most serious charges in the CFPB complaint is an allegation that Navient incentivized employees to encourage borrowers to postpone payments through forbearance, an option in which interest continues to accrue, rather than enroll them in an income-driven repayment plan that would avoid fees. As a result, the CFPB says Navient amassed $4 billion in interest charges to the principal balances of borrowers who were enrolled in multiple, consecutive forbearances from January 2010 to March 2015.”

With respect to the lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said “Navient has systematically and illegally failed borrowers at every stage of repayment.”

State Attorney Generals of Illinois and Washington also filed a lawsuit that, in addition to pursuing similar claims as the CFPB with respect to servicing violations, also accuse Navient (through its former parent company, Sallie Mae) of peddling “’risky and expensive’ subprime private student loans that carried high interest rates and fees”. AG Madison stated, “Navient and Sallie Mae saddle students with subprime loans that Sallie Mae designed to fail.”

As quoted by Douglas-Gabriel, “The lawsuits are full of deeply disturbing allegations,” said Rohit Chopra, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and the former student-loan point man at the CFPB. “If this is true, then the company’s actions may be responsible for some of the pileup of defaults that we’ve seen in recent years.”

Our firm at Semnar & Hartman, LLP has also recently filed suit against Navient. A copy of the Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. In this lawsuit, the consumer alleges that she paid off the loan with Navient in full, yet Navient proceeded to commit credit reporting violations by falsely reporting that the account had a current balance even after it had been paid in full, then falsely verified to Trans Union that the incorrect reporting was accurate, and also falsely reported to Experian that the account had been discharged in bankruptcy…. Thus, it appears that not even customers who pay their loans in full to Navient are free from their outrageous and abusive consumer violations.

If you also have concerns about the way you are being treated by Navient, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

Related Tags: Navient, fair credit reporting, credit reporting violations, consumer protection, fair debt collection practices, orange county consumer attorney, san diego consumer attorney, riverside consumer attorney, debt collection harassment

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on December 13, 2016
Our law firm recently received preliminary approval for class certification in the case of Capps. v. Law Office of Peter Singer, et al. The opinion can be read by clicking HERE.

The case was filed October 26, 2015, alleging that the Law Office of Peter Singer sent debt collection letters to consumers with language that overshadows and contradicts mandatory disclosures that debt collectors are required to provide to consumers to properly advise them of their rights under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In particular, 15 U.S.C. 1692g requires third party debt collectors, even law firms that regularly engage in debt collection on behalf of another, must include a notice in their first collection letter that the consumer has 30 days to either dispute the debt, a portion of the debt, or request validation of the debt. If the consumer does provide in writing either a dispute or a request for validation, the debt collector must cease any further efforts to collect the debt until validation is delivered to the consumer. Typically, the validation must involve delivering to the consumer the original creditor’s name and address and/or a copy of a judgment.

This is important, because often-times debts are sold and re-sold between different agencies, and the consumer may not know what the debt pertains to if they do not recognize the current creditor or current collection agency. Providing to the consumer the original creditor’s name and address, at a minimum, should help the consumer to determine whether the debt is validly owed by the consumer, if the debt was actually incurred by someone else and the collector is contacting the wrong person, or if the debt had been paid off in the past and there is a mistake in alleging the debt is still owed. Providing the consumer 30 days to send such a dispute or request for validation provides the consumer with sufficient time to consider his or her choices in how to proceed, and also provides the consumer sufficient time to gather and deliver documents to the debt collector to support a dispute.

Courts have consistently held that any other language in the first collection letter that weakens or confuses this mandatory disclosure amounts to an “overshadowing” violation of the FDCPA.

Plaintiff’s claims in this case are based on the collection letters containing language that attempted to limit the consumers’ rights to take 30 days by urging consumers to pay the debt within 7 days. In particular, the letters claimed that the Law Office of Peter Singer would be entitled to sue the consumers after 7 days if they do not pay the debt or call the debt collector to make payment arrangements. Even though the letters also contained the mandatory 30 day dispute disclosure discussed above, the fact that the letters also contained a threat of lawsuit after merely 7 days of non-payment weakened and overshadowed the consumers’ absolute right to a 30 day dispute period.

On November 21, 2016, the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The class settlement will entitle 170 members of the class to receive $66.70 each out of the class fund of $11,606.16. Class members can opt out in order to pursue their own claim on an individual basis. A final fairness hearing will be held March 13, 2017 in order for the Court to determine whether the final payments should be distributed to the class members who have not opted out, and in order to finally dispose of the class action if the Court determines that finalizing the class settlement is fair and meets all legal requirements of Rule 23.

A copy of the motion for class preliminary approval can also be found by clicking HERE.

As always, if you or a loved one are being contacted by a debt collector, you should not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to determine whether your rights have been violated.

Related Tags: FDCPA, fair debt collection, default judgment, set aside default, motion to set aside, wage garnishment, bank levy, debt collection harassment, mountain lion acquisitions, overshadowing, debt collection letter violation, law office of peter singer, class action, FDCPA class action, consumer class action, class settlement, riverside debt harassment attorney, san diego debt harassment attorney, orange county debt harassment attorney, los angeles debt harassment attorney

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on November 28, 2016
Sadly, we have seen numerous incidents of third party debt collectors obtaining default judgment against a consumer based on a proof of service that the consumer claims is fraudulent. This sometimes occurs when the process server simply claimed that the person was served personally, even though we have been able to obtain proof that the consumer did not reside at the address claimed to have been the place for service on the date claimed. More common, however, is that the process server had claimed that substitute service occurred by serving an unidentified JOHN DOE/JANE DOE, even though we are able to obtain proof that no-one other than the consumer resided at the residence on the date alleged, or that the consumer had actually moved from that residence before the alleged service occurred. We have also seen this occur when the process server claimed to have executed substitute service, but failed to show evidence via affidavit of reasonable diligence to first attempt personal service, which also renders the service invalid and consequently renders the default invalid.

In any event, however it may occur, many consumers who have reached out to us only first discovered the default judgment after having received notice from his/her employer that a wage garnishment was about to occur by the debt collector serving a writ of execution upon the judgment. Sometimes, a levy is also placed by the debt collector upon the consumer’s bank accounts, which freezes the finances contained therein and allows the debt collector to withdraw some or all of those finances. Clearly, this can be devastating because it can have a direct impact on the consumer’s ability to budget for living expenses and other necessary life expenses.

If this has happened to you or someone you love, then you must not delay in seeking counsel’s representation. California law requires that the consumer seek to set aside the entry of default and default judgment within six months of first discovering they have occurred. We have unfortunately seen people who have waited, thinking it would just magically go away, or that they have contacted the debt collector directly in an attempt to obtain their agreement to set aside after explaining the service was not legit and only to then be taken advantage of by the debt collector. We have also seen people who have filed hardship paperwork with the court without first contesting the default and without contesting the proof of service, which can be argued as an implicit admission that the service was valid. These are not good options….the best option is to promptly call a consumer attorney to discuss the proper course of seeking to set aside the default and default judgment. There are also very technical requirements that must be met in seeking to do this, and a failure to meet every single technical requirement can result in the motion to set aside being denied with prejudice, which means the consumer has now forever lost any ability to ever seek to set them aside.

Again, the best option is to promptly consult a consumer attorney to discuss the proper course on how to pursue the set aside based upon the consumer’s individual circumstances. One example motion to set aside can be found by clicking HERE.

If we are successful in having the entry of default and default judgment set aside, then it is possible for us to file a counter-suit against the debt collector (and possibly the process server) for engaging in unfair and oppressive conduct and misrepresentations. Many federal courts have ruled that it is not possible to file a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act before obtaining the set aside, because such a lawsuit operates as an indirect appeal of the court’s entry of default without actually having taken an appeal through proper channels. So, the best strategy is to first obtain a court ruling setting aside the entry of default/default judgment and then review the case for a counter-suit.

If you or anyone you know is in such a circumstance, please do not hesitate to contact us promptly for a free and confidential consultation to review your particular circumstances.

Related Tags: FDCPA, fair debt collection, default judgment, set aside default, motion to set aside, wage garnishment, bank levy, debt collection harassment, mountain lion acquisitions, Kenosian & Miele, Mandarich Law Group, legal recovery law offices, riverside debt harassment attorney, san diego debt harassment attorney, orange county debt harassment attorney, los angeles debt harassment attorney

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on November 8, 2016
Getting hurt on the job can be a very traumatic event. Your life can be changed for the worse—not only are you physically hurt, but you risk not being able to perform your job duties any longer and you possibly risk losing your job completely. Depending on the injury, you may not be able to work in your industry at all any more. The lack of ability to provide for yourself and your family leads to emotional issues such as depression, anxiety, and feelings of self-doubt and loss of self-worth. The loss of income possibly results in losing your home to foreclosure due to an inability to pay your mortgage, which could also in turn result in strife within the marriage. All of your dreams and plans for the future are crushed.

Now add to all of these problems the fact that the medical provider has been relentlessly attempting to collect money from you for the medical services that were provided as a direct result of the workplace injury, even though you are struggling financially due to your loss of normal stream of income. Your worker’s compensation attorney sends the medical provider a letter informing them that their exclusive remedy is to file a claim for services with the worker’s compensation board and participate in that process. Your attorney also informs the medical provider that they are not to attempt to contact you directly anymore, because California Labor Code 3751(b) specifically prohibits them from collecting the bill for services from you directly.

Their responses to your attorney’s letter, however, is to retain an outside collection agency who then proceeds to continue collection efforts from you personally. They call you repeatedly at all hours of the day; they send you letters with ominous threatening language. They claim the debt is increasing because of interest and costs and fees, and they threaten that the debt is going to be a negative mark on your consumer credit report. All of this adds to your stress, anxiety, and depression because you thought you were protected and you thought they were going to faithfully comply with your attorney’s instructions to file a claim with the worker’s compensation board.

You lose sleep; you lose faith in the worker’s compensation process; you lose faith and trust in your attorney; you worry about how these bills are going to get paid; you worry about how you will be able to move forward with negative items on your credit report that you are not supposed to be responsible for….

Thankfully, you can go after these unscrupulous companies who are so quick to degrade you and ignore your rights!!

California Labor Code Sections 4600, 5300, 5304, and 5955 provide the basis that the worker’s compensation board has exclusive jurisdiction to handle payment of medical debts that are the subject of a workers’ compensation claim. In order for the medical provider and/or debt collector to seek reimbursement for their medical services, they must submit a claim to the workers’ compensation board so that the board can determine the appropriate amount of pay for the employer and/or employer’s insurance company to provide to the medical providers. If the medical provider and/or debt collector is not satisfied with the board’s ruling, then their sole remedy is to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to California Labor Code § 5900 and then appellate review pursuant to California Labor Code § 5950.

However, California Labor Code § 3751(b) provides that medical providers shall not collect money directly from the employee for services to cure or relieve the effect of the injury for which a claim form, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 5401, was filed, unless the medical provider has received written notice that liability for the injury has been rejected by the employer and the medical provider has provided a copy of this notice to the patient. Any medical provider who violates Cal. Lab. Code § 3751(b) shall be liable for three times the amount unlawfully collected, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Semnar & Hartman, LLP regularly ties such unlawful debt collection tactics into a claim for either or both of the Federal or Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, since those laws prohibit any attempt to collect an unauthorized amount in connection with consumer debts. Click HERE to review a complaint recently filed against Scripps Memorial Hospital and Progressive Management Systems for contacting the employee directly several times in complete disregard of a letter sent by the employee’s worker’s compensation attorney.

If you or a loved one are proceeding through a workers’ compensation board claim, but are still receiving debt collection bills and/or phone calls, please do not hesitate to contact us as soon as possible for a free, confidential consultation about your rights.

Related Tags: debt collection harassment, medical debt harassment, worker’s compensation laws, workman’s compensation laws, worker’s compensation debt collection, workman’s compensation debt collection, Scripps Memorial, rosenthal fair debt collection practices act, harassing phone calls, harassing debt collection calls, FDCPA, rosenthal FDCPA, california debt collection harassment, riverside debt collection harassment, san diego debt collection harassment, orange county debt collection harassment, TCPA, telephone consumer protection act

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on November 1, 2016
Our law firm is investigating suspected internal policies of telephone harassment by City Title Loan, LLC and are looking for anyone who has received collection calls or letters by them for free and confidential consultations.

A lawsuit filed earlier this year alleges that City Title Loan employees used automatic dialing equipment to place a large volume of calls (in excess of 90 calls) to one of their customers over a period of just a few weeks in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Even though the customer repeatedly asked that the calls cease and asked for routine billing statements as proof of exactly what is owed (which are disclosures that federal law makes mandatory), the business not only refused to comply but also belittled him when threatening that the calls would continue.

The company also proceeded to call the customer’s elderly mother who is living with Parkinson’s disease and uttered threats of collection against her (even though she was only listed as a reference and not a co-obligor), and also threatened to the mother that they were looking to arrest the customer if he did not make a payment (which is false because failing to make a payment is only a breach of contract and is not subject to criminal charges). A copy of the complaint can be read by clicking HERE

Please rest assured, you do have rights! If you are facing collection efforts by City Title Loan (or any other title loan lender, payday lender, bank, creditor, or debt collector), please do not hesitate to contact us a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights have been violated.

Related Tags: debt collection harassment, City Loan harassment, City Title Loan harassment, City Title Loan, LLC, rosenthal fair debt collection practices act, harassing phone calls, harassing debt collection calls, FDCPA, rosenthal FDCPA, california debt collection harassment, riverside debt collection harassment, san diego debt collection harassment, orange county debt collection harassment, TCPA, telephone consumer protection act

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on September 19, 2016
Just recently Wells Fargo agreed to a settlement with government agencies (The office of the Comptroller of Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Los Angeles City Attorney) to pay a civil penalty of $190 million over its disturbing history of opening fake accounts in customers’ names without the customers’ consent or authorization.

Government investigations have revealed that Wells Fargo pushed its branches to meet high sales quotas, and that a rampant scheme amongst several managers and employees resulted in accounts and credit cards being opened in customers’ names in order for the branches to meet the high quotas. A Wall Street Journal article that describes this history of this disturbing issue can be read by clicking HERE .

In May 2015, the Los Angeles City Attorney filed a lawsuit suit against Wells Fargo, alleging the bank pressured its employees to commit fraudulent acts, including opening accounts for people that don’t exist. The City Attorney filed its lawsuit under the California Unfair Business Practices Act and Unfair Competition Laws.

The CFPB and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also opened investigations and found that bank employees illegally transferred money from legitimate accounts into unauthorized ones opened for customers without their approval.

More information about the investigation can be read in this CNN Money article, by clicking HERE

Per the Press Release issued by the CFPB:

“Spurred by sales targets and compensation incentives, employees boosted sales figures by covertly opening accounts and funding them by transferring funds from consumers’ authorized accounts without their knowledge or consent, often racking up fees or other charges. According to the bank’s own analysis, employees opened more than two million deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers.”
“Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses,’ said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.”
A copy of the CFPB consent order can be read HERE

Wells Fargo now claims that it will eliminate all sales goals for credit cards, checking accounts, and other retail products starting January 1, 2016 as a measure of addressing these concerns. Additionally, approximately 5,300 employees have been fired over this rampant scheme of fraud. A Los Angeles Times article on Wells Fargo’s recent response can be read HERE.

However, despite the fine and employee terminations and promises of eliminating the aggressive sales tactics that resulted in the widespread scheme of fraud, some people are still outraged that no criminal proceedings are on the forefront. Newsman Ben Swann recently conducted a piece on this issue on his show Reality Check. Watch the video below:

We at Semnar & Hartman, LLP are experienced in handling these very issues on behalf of consumers. When an account is opened in a customers’ name without their consent or authorization, it is without a doubt an illegal account. And when that illegal account accrues fees and costs, but when those fees/costs are not paid because the customer is not aware of the account having been opened, there will inevitably be negative credit reporting and debt collection efforts.

Anyone who has been a victim of this scam deserves justice. We can help.

If you or a loved one have had this unfortunate experience, please do not hesitate to call us for a free and confidential consultation.

Please note, nothing herein is to be construed as legal advice, and is instead hyperbolic opinions on an issue of public concern. Proper legal advice can only be given after a full, and confidential, consultation takes place after a review of all of the client’s circumstances.

Related Tags: Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo fraud, Wells Fargo identity theft, fraud, fake accounts, identity theft, California consumer attorney, California identity theft, California debt harassment attorney, CFPB, Wells Fargo CFPB consent order, Wells Fargo lawsuit, Wells Fargo illegal accounts, consumer protection, credit report fraud, California credit reporting, San Diego consumer attorney

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on September 2, 2016
Recently, we have had numerous calls by individuals who are confused as to the difference between “soft” inquiries vs. “hard” inquiries on their consumer credit reports.

As a general rule, an inquiry is created when your credit report is accessed by a third party. Typically, these third parties are potential creditors—such as a credit card company, an auto dealership, or a home mortgage loan officer—but are also sometimes debt collection agencies, repossession agencies, insurance companies, and even potential employers. When consumers apply for a car loan, for example, the lender who is being asked to provide the loan will request a credit report for the consumer, which is generally obtained from either Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. The fact that your credit information was used by these third parties will be noted on the consumer’s credit report, along with the date it was requested, the name of the third party that requested it, and the type of inquiry.

Before we discuss specifics, it is important to note that inquiries remain on the consumer’s credit reports for two years. Soft inquiries will have less of an effect on the consumer’s credit score than hard ones. So what’s the difference?

Hard inquiries are inquiries that can significantly affect a consumer’s credit score. They suggest to potential creditors that the consumer is actively trying to obtain credit, whether it be for a car, a credit card, a home mortgage loan, or simply a student loan. Numerous hard inquiries in a short period of time creates red flags, because it appears as if the consumer is trying to obtain more credit than s/he typically carries, and therefore might not be able to repay, which results in more of a negative impact upon the consumers’ credit score than individual hard inquiries spread out over a longer period of time.

Soft inquiries, on the other hand, are generally not the result of a consumer who is shopping for credit. They can occur due to a consumer who requests their own credit report, or a lender who sends a consumer a preapproved credit offer. Such inquiries are not the result of active credit requests by the consumer, and therefore they do not generally result in the consumer’s credit score being negatively impacted. Other soft inquiries may include a request generated by a potential employer or an insurance company whose purpose is not to provide “credit” to the consumer.

How to Avoid Unintentional Hard Inquiries?
As indicated above, a consumer who reviews their credit report will: 1) not cause a hard inquiry on their own credit report, and 2) can see if others are making hard inquires on their credit report. It is important to know that generating an inquiry (hard or soft) without a “permissible purpose” is a violation of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

If you don’t know where to get a free credit report, or what to look for, Semnar & Hartman, LLP can help. We provide a free, no strings attached confidential consultation, where we sit down with any potential client and review their credit reports with them. If there is an error, or an inquiry that should not be there, we can help with disputing the information. If it is not removed with a simple dispute letter, then we may be able take pursue a lawsuit on your behalf, without any fee being charged to you. The FCRA provides for the consumer to obtain his/her attorneys’ fees from those who violate the Act. Moreover, they provide for statutory damages for the consumer for willful violations, even if the consumer has not suffered any actual harm.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE – Please call us to schedule a Free Consultation, whereby you may receive legal advice tailored for your specific situation.

So, feel free to come see us at 400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209, Vista, California, or simply call us at (619) 500-4187 to schedule a phone consultation to ensure your credit report is free of any unwanted or unauthorized inquires. You can also obtain more information at our website: www. SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com

Related Tags: FCRA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, California debt harassment attorney, san diego Credit report attorney, riverside Credit report attorney, orange county Credit report attorney, Los Angeles Credit report attorney, Temecula Credit report attorney, Inaccurate Credit Reporting, Credit Report Attorneys, Credit Report Lawyers, California Credit Report Laws, Hard Inquiries, Soft Inquires, Hard Inquiry, Soft Inquiry, Free Credit Report, Free Consultation, Contingency Credit Report Attorneys, Phone Consultation, Consumer Attorneys, Consumer Lawyer, California FCRA, California Civil Code Section 1785.25

Bob Semnar, Esq. Posted on August 28, 2016
On August 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) entered into a consent order with Wells Fargo over the manner in which Wells Fargo has been unlawfully handling its student loan servicing practices. The CFPB is a federal government agency that is tasked with investigating unlawful and unfair practices that creditors, banks, and debt collectors engage in with respect towards consumers. If violations are discovered and alleged, the CFPB has the power to issue a wide array of penalties that could include ordering a business to close its operations. Needless to say, when the CFPB sets its targets on a financial entity, the company should be in fear.

On August 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) entered into a consent order with Wells Fargo over the manner in which Wells Fargo has been unlawfully handling its student loan servicing practices. The CFPB is a federal government agency that is tasked with investigating unlawful and unfair practices that creditors, banks, and debt collectors engage in with respect towards consumers. If violations are discovered and alleged, the CFPB has the power to issue a wide array of penalties that could include ordering a business to close its operations. Needless to say, when the CFPB sets its targets on a financial entity, the company should be in fear.

Before we discuss specifics, it is important to note that inquiries remain on the consumer’s credit reports for two years. Soft inquiries will have less of an effect on the consumer’s credit score than hard ones. So what’s the difference?

Processing payments in a way that maximized fees owed by consumers. Specifically, if a borrower made a payment that was not enough to cover the total amount due for all loans in an account, Wells Fargo divided that payment across the loans in a way that maximized late fees rather than satisfying payments for some of the loans. The bank failed to adequately disclose to consumers how it allocated payments across multiple loans, and that consumers have the ability to provide instructions for how to allocate payments to the loans in their account. As a result, consumers were unable to effectively manage their student loan accounts and minimize costs and fees.
Billing statements misrepresenting to consumers that paying less than the full amount due in a billing cycle would not satisfy any obligation on an account. In reality, for accounts with multiple loans, partial payments may satisfy at least one loan payment in an account. This misinformation could have deterred borrowers from making partial payments that would have satisfied at least one of the loans in their account, allowing them to avoid certain late fees or delinquency.
Illegally charging late fees even though timely payments had been made. Specifically, charging illegal late fees to payments made on the last day of their grace periods, and also charging illegal late fees to certain students who elected to pay their monthly amount due through multiple partial payments instead of one single payment.
Failing to update and correct inaccurate, negative information reported to credit reporting agencies about certain borrowers who have made partial payments or overpayments.
For these unlawful practices, Wells Fargo must pay at least $410,000.00 to consumers as compensation for illegal collection fees and late fees, and must allocate partial payments made by a borrower in a manner that satisfies the amount due for as many of the loans as possible, unless the borrower directs otherwise. Wells Fargo must also provide consumers with improved disclosures in billing statements, which must explain how the bank applies and allocates payments and how borrowers can direct payments to any of the loans in their student loan account. Wells Fargo must also remove any negative student loan information that has been inaccurately or incompletely provided to a consumer reporting agency. Wells Fargo must also pay a $3.6 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

The CFPB’s consent order can be ready by clicking HERE.

Clearly, this is not a light slap on the wrist that banks typically believe they should get, and this strong action by the CFPB should hopefully send a clear message to Wells and other financial institutions that they must take consumer rights very seriously and respect consumers as human beings instead of just another financial account on the books.

If you or a loved one have concerns over any account being serviced or owned by Wells Fargo, please do not hesitate to contact our law firm for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

Related Tags: TCPA, telephone consumer protection act, telemarketing calls, debt collection calls, robo calls, robocalls, auto dialer, autodialer, Wells Fargo mortgage, Wells Fargo harassment, Wells Fargo TCPA, Wells Fargo harassing phone calls, Wells Fargo mortgage collection harassment, Wells Fargo mortgage phone calls, Wells Fargo robocalls, Wells Fargo student loan, Wells Fargo debt harassment, Wells Fargo credit reporting, inaccurate credit reporting, credit reporting violations, debt collection harassment, FDCPA, FCRA, fair debt collections, fair credit reporting