Enforcement Actions : Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection

Home → Consumer Credit Home Page → Enforcement → Enforcement Action

Rogers, Richards & Ingels; 1266 West Paces Ferry Road; Atlanta, GA 30327 - Amended Order

June 18, 2014

This matter came on for hearing on Wednesday April 2, 2014. Eric Wright appeared for the staff of the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau). Respondents Rogers, Richards & Ingels failed to appear, either by counsel or in person.

The Bureau presented evidence that Respondents were properly notified of the scheduling of the hearing, and of the opportunity to appear and he heard. The evidence, admitted into evidence as Exhibits 1 and 2, consisted of certified mail receipts showing that Respondents received the information and signed for it on March 1, 2014, as well as a cover letter dated February 25 from Eric Wright to the Respondents, marked and introduced as Exhibit 3, and a letter to attorney, Robert Bird, Esq. of Altamonte Springs, Florida, who identified himself in an e-mail of January 8, 2014 ? entered into evidence as Exhibit 14 ? as representing Respondents.

Testimony was taken from the following witnesses: Bureau licensing supervisor Kristine Fournier, business owner Amy L. Alexander, and consumers M. St. C., G. St. C., P.M.G. and K.G., who appeared, were sworn in and testified but whose names are redacted for purposes of this Order.

Based on that testimony and additional evidence introduced at the hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

The Bureau is an agency of the State of Maine, 9-A M.R.S. ? 6-103, 10 M.R.S. ? 8001(2), authorized and designated to administer the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 32 M.R.S. ?? 11001-11054, through the Superintendent of the Bureau. See, e.g., id. ?? 11002(9), 11031(1)-(3), 11032, 11034, 11036, 11051.
The Bureau is authorized to receive and act on complaints, 9-A M.R.S. ? 6-106, including examining and investigating any person believed to be subject to the FDCPA, 32 M.R.S. ? 11051, and ordering a person to cease and desist from committing a violation of any provision of the Act or accepting an assurance in writing that the person will not engage in the same or in similar conduct in the future. Id. ?? 6-108(1), 6-109.
The Bureau has the legal authority to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, adduce evidence, and require the production of any matter which is relevant to an examination or investigation, see id. ? 6-106(2), as further specified therein.
A debt collector means any person conducting business in this State the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another person. 32 M.R.S. ? 11002(6). Conducting business in this State includes the attempted collection of a debt due another by a debt collector, wherever located. Id. ? 11002(2).
The FDCPA requires that, subject to exceptions not here relevant, no person may conduct the business of a debt collector without a valid license issued annually by the Superintendent of the Bureau. Id. ? 11031(1), (2). In deciding whether to issue a license, the Superintendent may require production of financial statements and references (including for all managerial personnel of an applicant), and may investigate the applicant?s reputation, integrity, competence, and net worth. Id. ? 11031(3)(A).
The FDCPA requires, among other things, that debt collectors, in connection with the collection of any debt:

shall not communicate with a consumer more than once unless requested to do so by the consumer . . . ; 32 M.R.S. ? 11011(1)(C);
shall not communicate with any consumer at times or places that are known to be inconvenient to the consumer; 32 M.R.S. ? 11012(1)(A);
shall not communicate with any person other than a consumer from whom a debt is sought to be collected, except for purposes of confirming or correcting location information about the consumer; 32 M.R.S. ? 11012(2);
shall not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person, including engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy abuse, or harass any person at the called number; 32 M.R.S. ? 11013(1)(F);
may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means, including representing or implying that nonpayment of any debt will result in the seizure, garnishment, or attachment of any property or wages of any person, in the absence of that action being lawful and intended to be taken; threatening to take any action that may not legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; falsely representing or implying, in order to disgrace a consumer, that the consumer committed conduct; and using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt; 32 M.R.S. ?? 11013(2)(D), (E), (G), (J); and
may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, including threatening to bring legal action in the debt collector?s own name or instituting suits on behalf of others; 32 M.R.S. ? 11013(3)(N).

At all times relevant to this Order, Amy L. Alexander has been the owner and president of the Academy of Medical Professions in Brunswick, Maine, a licensed proprietary school offering courses by correspondence and at adult education centers throughout Maine in medical and hospital billing and coding, in medical transcription, for phlebotomy and pharmacy technicians, dental assistants, and medical office specialists.
On December 30, 2013, Alexander entered into a written agreement, marked and introduced as Exhibit 8, with Respondents Rogers, Richards & Ingels, of Atlanta, Georgia, by which Respondents would act as a debt collector for the Academy of Medical Professions on student accounts provided by Alexander.
Alexander provided Rogers, Richards & Ingels with accounts of 47 students who, she asserted, owed her, in the aggregate, $83,741.50. A list of those accounts was marked and introduced as Exhibit 9.
On January 3, 2014, the Bureau received a telephone complaint, followed by an electronically filed complaint, from M. St. C., a Maine consumer, concerning telephone calls between her and/or her husband, G. St. C., in Maine, and representatives of Rogers, Richards & Ingels, to include:

On January 2, 2014, a Charles Martin of Rogers, Richards & Ingels, called the St. C. residence, and after learning that M. St. C. was not available to take his call, told G. St. C that he supposed he could tell G. St. C. that M. St. C owed the Academy of Medical Professions $1,800 and that Rogers, Richards & Ingels had sent out a letter stating that M. St. C. was going to be sued the next day, January 3, 2014;
In the same phone call, Martin told G. St. C. that he was going to contact two of the St. C.s? credit card account holders to have them raise the St. C.s? interest rates, and demanded that M. St. C. pay her debt, telling G. St. C. that G. St. C. knows that M. St. C. owes the debt;
On January 3, 2014, Martin again called G. St. C.?s cell phone, but M. St. C. answered, and he told her, among other things, that it appeared she was flipping a coin to decide which of her debts she would pay; that he was not going to talk to her; that her husband had Martin?s telephone number, that he was going ?to file against her? on Monday morning (January 6, 2014); and that if she did not want to make paying her debt a priority, he would do so??not a problem?;
M. St. C. called Rogers, Richards & Ingels back a few minutes later and was eventually connected to Martin, who, when M. St. C. asked why he had hung up on the previous call, said he was not going to waste his time on her and, after further discussion about validation of the debt?including saying that she had been mailed a letter and an invoice on December 26, 2013?and M. St. C.?s having received one of two diplomas for her course work at the Academy of Medical Professions, M. St. C. asked to set up a payment plan of $50 a month, which evidently was not acceptable to Martin, who said she could keep her money and use it for gas when she had to go to court;
M. St. C. called Rogers, Richards & Ingels again on January 3, 2014, and was directed to a Tom Kindle, who told M. St. C. that Martin was not going to waste any more time on her, and he was going to take her to court; that Rogers, Richards & Ingels? contract with the Academy of Medical Professions allows them to file suit if they deem it appropriate (which he said they did); that he wondered why she was ?playing games?; that he wondered if she had legal representation; and that her proposed payment plan offer was ?ridiculous?;
In a subsequent call from M. St. C. to Rogers, Richards & Ingels shortly thereafter, in an attempt to speak to Martin, Kindle said that it would be a waste of time for her to speak to Martin; that he, Kindle, was the manager of the company; that M. St. C. had one excuse after another; that he had had enough of her; and that she was ?like a little four year-old?;
In another call to Rogers, Richards & Ingels on January 3, 2014, M. St. C. spoke to Alec Anderson who went over a settlement offer with M. St. C. (also mentioned in two of the previous calls (?? D and E)), this time telling her that Rogers, Richards & Ingels would send her a court order for $3500 (about twice M. St. C.?s debt); that her enrollment contract with the Academy of Medical Professions made her liable for court costs, attorneys? fees, and costs of any necessary legal action; and that the offer was on the table until 3 o?clock, ?take it or leave it.?

On January 6, 2014, Alexander, in her capacity as president of the Academy of Medical Professions, wrote Rogers, Richards & Ingels to ?cease and dismiss (sic) the collection services you have offered our company.?
On January 10, 2014, M. St. C. received a dunning letter from Rogers, Richards & Ingels.
On January 3, 2014, the Bureau received an electronically filed complaint from P. M. G., a Maine consumer, concerning telephone calls between her and/or her mother, K. G., in Maine, and representatives of Rogers, Richards & Ingels, to include:

On the afternoon of December 30, 2013, a man called K. G. to speak to P. M. G., and despite being told that P. M. G. did not live there the man kept right on talking when K. G. told him she was recovering from surgery and was trying to rest, and the man even called back shortly after the first call;
On the morning of December 31, 2013, the same person called K. G. again, this time saying that he was calling from what K. G. understood him to say was ?Rogers and Associates,? and he acknowledged he was the caller from the day before, and K. G. again told him she was recovering from surgery and regarded his calls, now three in number, as harassment; the caller denied having made three calls;
About five minutes later, the same representative of Rogers, Richards & Ingels called K. G. again, stating that his investigator had turned up telephone numbers associated with P. M. G.; K. G. told him again she regarded the calls as harassment;
On the morning of December 31, 2013, after getting two phone messages at work, P. M. G. called a Mr. Anderson at Rogers, Richards & Ingels, and he insisted that she pay her debt to the Academy of Medical Professions; after some involved discussion, including his rejecting her proposal of a payment plan, Anderson told P. M. G. that he was not concerned about her having to pay other debts as well; that he did not need her cooperation, and that he would sue her and have assets of hers, such as cars, bank accounts, and household items of value, seized;
Later that same day, Anderson called K. G. for the fourth time and left a message for P. M. G.
Also on December 31, 2013, Anderson called K. G.?s father, J. H., and left an urgent message that he needed P. M. G. to call him immediately;
On the afternoon of December 31, 2013, after she spoke to Amy Alexander, P. M. G. called Anderson to discuss again a payment plan, and he refused her proposal to pay $100 as ?measly,? and he again threatened to sue her and seize her assets; Anderson refused to refer P. M. G. to a manager, as she requested;
P. M. G. immediately called back to speak to a manager and was referred to Alan Goldberg, who knew she was calling about the Academy of Medical Professions and told P. M. G. that she would be sued and her assets seized; that he did not need her cooperation and he would take her to court and let a judge decide; that (when P. M. G. said she had never experienced something like this in her life) she had not seen anything yet and she would experience the full extent of the law and her assets would be seized; that he would personally bring the case to a judge if P. M. G. did not pay according to his terms; and that P. M. G. had until noon on Thursday (January 2, 2014) before he filed a suit against her;
In a phone call to the company about an hour later, P. M. G. confirmed with Anderson his company?s name and his manager?s name;
Later in the afternoon of December 31, 2013, P. M. G. received a call from a Mr. White (whom she shortly realized was calling from Rogers, Richards & Ingels), who was upset that she had called Alexander to complain, given that he knew Anderson and Goldberg had not treated her badly; and, after some discussion about a settlement of the debt and a car P. M. G. had bought, that P. M. G. did not deserve a payment plan;
On January 2, 2014, Anderson called P. M. G. demanding to know if P. M. G. had the money to pay the Academy of Medical Professions debt, and after she told him how disrespectful the representatives of Rogers, Richards & Ingels had been and she had contacted the Federal Trade Commission and the Maine Attorney General?s office, Anderson said he would get her attention by contacting her employer;
A few minutes later, P. M. G. called Rogers, Richards & Ingels to tell Anderson to stop calling her, not to contact her employer, and, in order to put things in writing, to get the company?s address; Anderson was not available, and the representative of Rogers, Richards & Ingels said rhetorically, ?So you want to be served with a summons and [be] sued??; although P. M. G. said she was trying to be cooperative, but had been harassed, the representative said P. M. G. was the abusive one, was out of control, was acting like a five year-old, and was the only student not to pay her debts; this representative denied that Rogers, Richards & Ingels had done more than leave a couple of messages.

At no time relevant to this Order was Rogers, Richards & Ingels licensed by the Bureau to conduct the business of a debt collector in Maine pursuant to the FDCPA, based on the testimony of Bureau licensing supervisor Kristine Fournier.
Based on the testimony of Bureau licensing supervisor Kristine Fournier, at no time relevant to this Order was Rogers, Richards & Ingels registered as a foreign corporation with the Maine Secretary of State, a statutory precondition to a foreign corporation?s maintaining a proceeding in any court of Maine if it transacts business in this State.

NOW THEREFORE, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings:

The activities of Rogers, Richards & Ingels, as described above and as they were fully described by testimonial or documentary evidence, constitute the work of a debt collector in Maine, as defined by 32 M.R.S. ? 11002(2), (6).
Respondents Rogers, Richards & Ingels, in order lawfully to collect any debt in Maine, was required to be licensed but failed to do so, pursuant to 32 M.R.S. ? 11031(1).
Respondents violated 32 M.R.S. ?? 11011(1)(C), 11012(1)(A), 11012(2), 11013(1)(F), 11013(2)(D), (E), (G), (J), 11013(3)(N), and 11031(1). The communicated with individuals other than the debtor for purposes other than to obtain location information; they communicated to one or more consumers at their place of work when they know or should have known that such contact was inconvenient; the communicated information about alleged debts to third parties; the placed telephone calls without providing meaningful disclosure of their identities; the wrongfully and falsely represented threats of civil court actions and judicial remedies such as garnishment or seizure of assets, knowing that they had no intention of pursuing those remedies; they implied one or more consumers had committed a crime or undertaken other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer; they used or attempted to use deception to collect from one or more consumers; they threatened to initiate legal action in their own name, despite not being authorized to do so; and they failed to obtain a debt collector license when such a license was required, which constitutes a Class E crime pursuant to 32 MRS ?11040.

Based on the above findings, the Hearing Officer makes the following ORDER:

Respondents are hereby prohibited from applying for or obtaining a license to conduct the work of a debt collector in this State unless and until the company complies with the terms of this Order, pursuant to 10 M.R.S. ? 8003(5)(C)(3).

Respondents are hereby ordered to CEASE AND DESIST from contacting any Maine consumer for the purpose of collecting, or attempting to collect, any debt in this State unless and until the company is first licensed to conduct the work of a debt collector, pursuant to 9-A M.R.S. ? 6-108(1).

Respondents Rogers, Richards & Ingels are hereby required to pay a civil penalty of $15,000 for the ten discrete violations of the FDCPA that Respondents committed, pursuant to 10 M.R.S. ? 8003(5)(A-1)(3).

Respondents Rogers, Richards & Ingels are hereby ordered to pay costs to the Bureau, in the additional amount of $7,500, for the reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by the Bureau in its investigation of this matter and the administrative, testimonial hearing conducted in this case, pursuant to 32 M.R.S. ? 11051, 9-A M.R.S. ? 6-106(6).

This Order shall be prominently posted on the Bureau?s website, to provide notice to other creditors and consumers of the events that transpired to give rise to this administrative cause of action.

Date: June 18, 2014	/s/William N. Lund
	William N. Lund
	Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A M.R.S.A. ?6-108(1) and 5 M.R.S. ?11001 ? 11008 within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

Date: June 18, 2014	/s/William N. Lund
	William N. Lund
	Superintendent
	Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection

»Return to Enforcement Action List

Maine.gov

Rogers, Richards & Ingels; 1266 West Paces Ferry Road; Atlanta, GA 30327 - Amended Order