ComplaintsforBrock & Scott PLLC

• Initial Complaint

  10/24/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Brock & Scott, PLLC are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and are attempting to too collect on a fraudulent debt that is not my debt. I did not consent to them having and sharing any of my personal information and I did not consent to them trying to sue me.

  

  Business response

  10/31/2023

  The Law Firm of Brock & Scott, PLLC, (hereinafter “the Firm”) represents **** ******* ****** ***** (hereinafter “**** ******l”) in the collection of two credit accounts owed by the consumer in the matter underlying Complaint ********. **** ******l placed both claims with the Firm on March 9, 2023. At the time of placement, **** ******l included original account-level documentation proving its claim against the consumer. The original account-level documentation included account statements showing transactions upon the account, a payment to the creditor upon the account balance, notice of the account statements to the address of the consumer, terms and conditions of the accounts, and the application for credit of each account.
  In accordance with federal law, the Firm sent a demand letter for each credit accounts requesting payment—one on March 16, 2023, and the other on March 23, 2023. Each letter informed the consumer of how to dispute the debt. No disputes regarding either account were received by the Firm by the deadlines set forth in the demand letters. On May 5, 2023, the Firm received a phone call from consumer offering payments after an offset on one of the accounts. The firm set up a payment plan on May 8 that would refund the offset amount, 2023 and mailed payment plan paperwork to consumer on May 9, 2023. However, the payment plan paperwork was not returned and no payments were made. The firm sent a late payment letter on May 26, 2023. On October 25, 2023, the Firm received Complaint ********.
  The Complaint alleges (1) FDCPA violations, (2) the debt is fraudulent and not the consumers, (3) the consumer did not consent to his personal information being in the possession of the Firm or shared by the Firm, (4) the consumer did not consent to being sued.
  
  Without a specific violation, the Firm can only respond generally. The Firm is required to send a demand letter to consumer that advises consumer of his right to dispute the debt. The firm sent for each account such a demand letter in March 2023. There have been no communications to or personal information shared with an unauthorized third party.
  The Firm informed the consumer of his right to dispute the debts in the demand letters sent and informed the consumer the Firm will assume information is correct if no dispute is received. The consumer did not send the Firm written notice that they were disputing the debts as fraudulent by the deadlines set within the demand letters. This instant Complaint is the first notice the Firm has received of a claim of fraud. The Firm is treating these accounts according to its client’s fraud investigation process and will be sending an identity fraud affidavit to the consumer to facilitate the processing of consumers’ newfound claims of fraud.
  No personal information has been shared by the Firm, in violation of state or federal law or otherwise. Personal information was furnished to **** ******l by the consumer in order to secure two credit accounts. All information shared has been shared in accordance to **** ******l’s privacy policy. By using the credit accounts, consumer agreed to be bound by the account’s terms of use, including the privacy policy.
  The consumer has not been sued. Furthermore, lawsuits are an adversarial process by which the defendant or respondent is not required to provide consent.
  In closing, the Firm states that it has processed the claim according to applicable state and federal law and is justified in continuing to do so at this time. The Firm respectfully requests notice of any response in this matter.
  
  Thank you,
  

• Initial Complaint

  07/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  The enitre xompany misleads. I have been been looking for payoff paperwork . They are delaying the sale of the house and intentionally stalling to create more fees. I have emailed, called , and went to there nj office. I want the payoff paperwork good for 30days.

  

  Business response

  07/19/2023

  Dear Sir or Madam,
  
  Thank you for your notification of Complaint ID ******** regarding a concern that the issuance of a payoff quote was delayed.
  
  We have reviewed our internal records and confirmed that the customer requested a payoff quote on May 9 and May 12, 2023, which was provided on May 17, 2023.
  
  Thereafter, new quotes were provided on June 1st, June 29th and July 12, 2023.
  
  During this time period the attorney’s fees charged remained the same.
  
  Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
  
  Very truly yours,

  Brock & Scott, PLLC

• Initial Complaint

  06/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Concerning the property at **** ***** ***** **** ** ******* ** *****. Brock & Scott have filed a foreclosure sale date of 6.22.2023. Upon request of the Department of Veterans Affairs since this property is scheduled to be sold in a normal sale on 6.29.2023 at a sizeable profit, the bank, Wells Fargo, agreed to postpone the foreclosure sale to 8.21.2023. I have called and spoke with 3 different representatives where I have been told the communication to the **** County courthouse was provided by Brock & Scott. As of today, 6.12.2023, the clerk at **** County Courthouse validated NO communication of postponement has been received by them. In speaking with a Brock & Scott representative again today, I was told the sales manager stated they will not communicate with the courthouse until the morning of the sale on 6.22.2023. I am very frustrated that Brock & Scott has lied to me 3 different times since 6.5.2023. I am also very upset they refuse to communicate with the courthouse until the sale date. That is very risky and provides no time to make correction should the notification fail to be sent. All I ask is the postponed date be communicated to the **** County courthouse NOW to make sure this property is not auctioned off before I sell it.

  

  Business response

  06/13/2023

  Dear Ms. *****,
  
  We received your correspondence and provide the below explanation of the sale and postponement process for North Carolina:
  The Notice of Sale designates a specific date upon which the sale will occur, the place (the courthouse) being set by statute.
  
  At that time and place the noticed sale will either take place or will be postponed.
  
  If postponed to a new date, this is publicly “cried” at the place and time set for the sale;  a written postponement notice is filed with the clerk and posted. 
  
  Notice is then mailed to the interested parties of the postponement and new date;  this written notice relates to the postponement which occurred at the date and time of sale.
  
  There is no process whereby a sale postponement can be processed in advance of the published date because the postponement itself is a public act which occurs on the date set for sale.
  
  Please feel free to call our office should you have additional questions. 

• Initial Complaint

  03/02/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Back in 2015, I unexpectedly lost my job. Although I was a few payments behind, the car financed through AmeriCredit was repossessed and sold at auction. After the GAP payments were applied toward the balance, a deficiency of $11,283.96 remained. It wasn't until February 3, 2023 my check started being debited $730.97 bi-weekly. Upon investigation of why my wages were garnished, it was brought to my attention that back in 2018, we went to Court where I agreed to pay $234 a month towards this balance. Unfortunately, I was back to working, rebuilding my life after being homeless and I simply forgot about the balance. Invoices weren't being sent to the house which would would've reminded me a payment was needed. Over the past six weeks (3 full pay periods), this company has collected $4,453.56 from me. $2,991.62 alone came from a bonus check I was going to use to play catch up on my bills due to the garnishment. I've made (2) offers for a reduced payment - revert back to the original $234.96/month I agreed upon and $468/month to be automatically deducted out of my check. Both offers were declined without an explanation or a counteroffer. It seems to me this business is interested in ONLY collecting a debt by any means necessary despite it creating a financial hardship for the consumer. I was advised to file for bankruptcy to avoid the garnishment which isn't an option. Truth be told, by the time I go through the process and the debt is discharged, the entire balance would be paid which defeats the purpose of filing for bankruptcy. At this point, I am at my wit's end and extremely frustrated with how I am I am being treated. Ultimately, I am being forced to pay $1400 a month for a car I haven't owned since 2015. And no one seems to care or be willing to compromise!! As a consumer, it feels I have no rights

  

  Business response

  06/09/2023

  Brock & Scott, PLLC (“the Firm”) is a law firm that represents the judgment creditor, AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial. As stated by the complainant, the judgment creditor obtained a valid money judgment against the complainant in 2018. The Firm acknowledges that the complainant entered into a repayment plan but failed to pay as agreed. The Firm then filed for a garnishment, which is properly plead and pending. The Firm did present complainant’s offers for settlement to our client, the judgment creditor, and those offers were rejected. The Firm is ethically bound to carry out its client’s direction regarding settlement. As such, the garnishment remains in place. The Firm asserts that it has acted ethically and fairly regarding the garnishment action and request that this complaint be resolved and closed.

• Initial Complaint

  01/23/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Brock & Scott are attempting to collect a debt not owed. Account with ***** ***** was opened around 12/01/2021 as a result of fraud, I am a victim of identity theft. Reference Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Report number *********. The account was disputed with the Credit Bureaus on 02/25/2022 and removed as confirmed as fraud.

  

  Business response

  02/02/2023

  The Law Firm of Brock & Scott, PLLC, (hereinafter “the Firm”) received placement of credit account number ending -3202 (hereinafter “the Account”) from its client, ***** ***** Bank, N.A., (hereinafter “the Bank”).  Upon receipt of the placement, the Firm also received documentation for the Account which indicates transactions initiated upon the account. In addition, the documentation indicates that account statements were mailed to the Customer at *** ****** **** *** *********** ** *********** Pursuant to state and federal law, the Firm reviewed the account documentation at the time it prepared a Fair Debt Letter to the Customer, which gave the Customer notice of his rights to request validation of the debt. The Customer responded to dispute his liability on the account. The Customer’s response to the Account claims that he is the victim of fraud and identity theft. Upon receiving notice of these allegations, the Firm requested further review from the Bank. Upon review, the Bank advised that it received notice in March 2022 from the Customer that he was the victim of fraud and identity theft. Following receipt of such notice, the Bank conducted an investigation. The Bank’s investigation concluded that the debt was not the result of fraud or identity theft. The basis for the Bank’s findings included that the account records showed a payment made to the Account from a **** ** ******* Account on February 4, 2022 in the amount of $135.00. The **** ** ******* account which was used to remit payment upon the ***** ***** Credit Card account was valid and held in the name of the Customer. Furthermore, the Customer had been receiving account statements to the address on file which had been reported since 2017. Thus, ***** ***** declined the fraud claim. Upon notice that the fraud claim was declined, the Firm closed its escalation. Insofar as the Bank has conducted a reasonable investigation showing the Customer was aware of the account and authorized the account by remitting payment upon the same, the Firm requests that the complaint with the BBB be closed.

• Initial Complaint

  01/05/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I am not liable for this debt with **** ******* credit union and I do not have a contract with Brock & Scott PLLC plus they did not provide me with an original contract with **** ******* credit union or the original application like I asked.

  Customer response

  01/16/2022

  I have not heard from the business in response to my complaint.

  
  

  

  Business response

  01/17/2022

  The Law Office of Brock & Scott, PLLC (hereinafter “the Firm”) represents **** ******* Credit Union in regards to a delinquent credit card account, number ending -7051. The account balance stands at $9,219.69. At the time the account was placed for collection, the Firm reviewed original account level documentation including account statements. The original account level documentation indicated the Customer resided at **** *********** ******* *** ********* ** **********, and that she owed an account balance of $9,219.69. Therefore, a duly-licensed attorney conducted a file level review and determined that **** ******* Credit Union could seek to collect the account through available legal remedies. On November 1, 2021, our office mailed a Fair Debt Letter providing disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) to the Customer at  **** *********** ******* *** ********* ** **********. On December 27, 2021, the Customer mailed a letter demanding validation of the debt; however, it is noted that the Customer’s letter references account number ending -****, which does not correspond to the account number listed in the media provided by the creditor. Regardless, on December 28, 2021, our office responded to provide copies of the original account level documentation reviewed when sending the Fair Debt Letter.
  
  Upon review of the Customer’s complaint, the Firm responds to the Customer’s allegations as follows: (1.) The Customer alleges she is not liable for the debt with **** ******* Credit Union; however, the original account records presented by the Creditor indicate the Customer opened the account, used the account, and has a currently owing account balance. The Firm is willing to receive documents or other evidence bearing on Customer’s liability; however, the Customer has provided no such documentation at this time. (2.) The Customer alleges she does not have a contract with Brock & Scott, PLLC; however, this is irrelevant to whether the Customer owes a debt to the Firm’s client **** ******* Credit Union. The original account level documentation shows a defaulted credit account owed by the Customer to the Creditor. (3) The Customer alleges the Firm did not provide her with an original contract with **** ******* Credit Union or the Original Application; however, this documentation is not required in order to validate the debt in accordance with federal law under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g), nor is it required to establish a prima facie claim in a Georgia state court. My office is attaching a copy of the demand letter, the validation demand from the Customer, and our response to the Validation demand. The response to the validation demand attaches the account records provided by the Creditor.
  
  Insofar as the Customer’s complaint is not supported by either the facts or the law, the Firm respectfully requests that the BBB close the complaint.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩