Dealing with Afni, Inc

There are several similar cases on ripoffreport.com, involving accounts under maiden names, but at times when those names were not being used, and across the country from where the alleged debtor had lived, that also appear to NOT be id theft, but instead identification and dunning only by name match. In some of these cases, either Afni, or Verizon itself, claims the account was opened under the SSN of the alleged debtor, but this too is suspect.


One of the factors that points toward mass erroneous identification is the degree to which these reports are from people claiming to NEVER have had the account, with no knowledge of any other id theft, and in many cases never having had any connection with the geographical area of the alleged account. You would think that if this level of id theft were occurring, back in the mid '90s yet, at least some of it would be reported as a cluster of id thefts involving both fraudulent phone accounts and other fraudulent accounts, since id thieves often do not stop at just one usage of an identity, particularly when it involves id theft by relatives. In addition, real id thefts would tend to be geographically near the id theft victim. Yet reports of clusters of id theft among these Afni reports are virtually absent, and there are many reports of accounts with no geographical connection to the alleged debtor.

The common factor across virtually all of the reports is "misidentification" followed by questionable collection tactics, not verifiable "id theft", and this misidentification step was performed by Afni.

The other common factor, that points to recent "misidentification" rather than real past id theft, is that none of these reports indicate attempts to collect on these accounts prior to the recent dunning letters by Afni. This indicates that at least within the original creditor's records, the currently alleged debtor was not identified as the original debtor. This is also supported by a number of reports of current Verizon customers in good standing who have also received such Afni dunning letters.


The above factors are consistent with misidentification in dunning, either negligently or deliberately, and not with true id theft involving the past opening of an account using the alleged debtor's identification information.

 

Ok, I was going to sit on my current personal dealings with AFNI...

In 2003, I noticed them on my CR, around December, eventually when I didn't get a response, I escalated it to the Executive Offices, and down a level to the supervisor right under the EO.

After allowing several more months for them to obtain validation, I contacted the EO again and gave them the ultimatum, either have the validation by the end of the business day, or cease communications.

They chose the later, and put it into writing.

Now, all of a sudden here they come again, four years later, so after four years, my next communications to them is a suit for violating 805(c).

BTW: What makes this better, is that this county has the United Telephone/Sprint/Embarq monopoly, and not the GTE/Bell/Verizon monopoly.

 

Something is smelling increasingly rotten. Statistically, there is enough "noise" coming from Afni to detect an old Russian submarine.


Did this appear to be some account that you are confident you never had?
When did they claim it was from?

Is this even the same "account"? (Of course, who cares, if they are both probably bogus?)

 

Print out your receipt from the usps.com website, and put it in your files.
You are still waiting for the green cards to return, which will have signatures showing that they received the letters and who signed for them.

In the mean time, collect any letters they send, including the envelopes to show when mailed based on cancellation, and note on each the date received.
For example:
"Rcvd, xx/xx/xx, SIG"
where "xx/xx/xx" is the date you received it, and "SIG" are your initials.

Then file it.

Although they have received your validation letter, and under FDCPA they must stop all collection activity until they send you validation, they will probably try to claim it was an innocent error or the letters crossed in the mail. They might be able to get away with this in court for letters you receive over the next week or so, but you want to start logging all communications, whether by phone or mail, noting the date, in order to build a case for FDCPA violations if you need it.

 

Ontrack:

It's the same alleged phone number; and amount...

Since it was several years old in 2003 - enough that no documentation could be provided, it should tell you how old it is now...

 

I guess if you just sit on it for a few years, you get to collect on it again, without validation even after a timely request, regardless of FDCPA. In this business, same rules apply if the consumer pays it, or if you reach a settlement. Who cares about records? They might even claim the account was sold, and then they bought it again, so it is really a new debt! Debt collection never ends.

But what matters is not what excuse they think they will get you, the stupid consumer, to put up with their BS, but what a court MIGHT conclude. It doesn't actually pay for them to mount a defense in court, win or lose. Your records are in order. Do they feel lucky? Do they want to dump money on their attorney, on a pitiful account that they already know is suspect, and maybe also pay damages and your attorney? I bet they will cut their losses.

They are playing a game based on the numbers, colecting on cheaply purchased old debts by spending as little as possible including deliberately shifting any costs onto the consumer whereever possible, as a collection strategy. They appear to have no intention of "validating" any of the debt they are collecting on (it wouldn't make sense just due to cost), and they don't even appear to do any real "skip-tracing" (too costly), just match the debt to any name similar and dump it in the mail. They are betting that there is no cost to even flagrant violations, figuring they can limit any risk by ending collection before a consumer actually sues.

Sloppy but cheap.

And probably profitable most of the time, even as it wastes a bunch of time as consumers scurry around requesting validation, filing id theft reports on debts that were never in their name, and even paying debts they never owed. It also wastes police resources, and generates lots of spurious id theft reports that interfere with law enforcement's ability to effectively track and catch legitimate id thieves.

Technically, they may be mostly following the letter of the law with respect to FDCPA, or at least have "plausible deniability" to claims that they are deliberately and systematically violating. You can do anything as long as your opponent has enough uncertainty that they can't act on what you are actually doing.

However, they are knowingly practicing a scheme where large numbers of dunning letters are likely to be sent to the wrong consumer, with deliberate followup tactics to undermine the consumer's FDCPA dispute and validation rights despite knowing that a high number of misidentified consumers are being dunned. To some level, what they are doing is little different than those companies that try to slip phony invoices thru the accounts payable deparments of businesses. If the match of the debt against the consumer is frequently erroneous, then the "debt" that distinguishes this "billing practice" from outright fraud becomes a sham. The cheap OOS "debts" they bought are little different from buying a mailing list to use in the scheme, just without current addresses.

That is the "unfair trade practice" for which they may be vulnerable under the FTC Act, beyond just FDCPA violations, if FTC chooses to go after them. There may be similar state law violations. Obtaining such action would require a significant level of consumer complaints.


Your letter gave them a choice: validate, or cease and desist.
They chose cease and desist, and have never validated.

What information is in their new collection letter to tie it to the earlier "debt"?
Amount. Original creditor? Date? Anything else? In other words, if they were to claim that this is somehow a different debt, what would make their claim not credible?


Sounds like you have them, if you want. Their best play in response is to fold.

 

Well, here's the Statement of Facts section of the suit going out tomorrow morning, EMRRR... "When you absolutely positively, have to ruin their day by noon tomorrow..."

Only 4 suits to go out EMRRR tomorrow, and one to be filed in Md. PA, in a few days. (And there are at least two more to get typed up...)

Miraculously, this one is only 4 pages; the one to be filed is only 22 pages long...

 

Ripoffreport.com isn't the only site seeing a recent jump in complaints against Afni.

Many more Afni complaints (over 50), all due to collection letters sent since the beginning of 2007, same M.O., generally bogus accounts from the mid 1990's:

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/afni-collections-c3894.html

 

Well, my nice little 4 page letter & civil complaint to Afni went out today, EMRRR. Guaranteed to get to Bloomington tomorrow by noon. And I lost my Federal Courts virginity... Tomorrow the AO-399s go out to the defendant, with the 22 page complaints.

 

Non-compliance has its rewards.

 

Some law enforcement agencies appear to regard their tactics as matching the profile of fishing for identity information, and not legitimate debt collection:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff235011.htm


That raises an interesting hypothetical question:

What if, thru deceptive collection tactics (including falsely claiming particular consumers owed a debt, claiming that consumers had to file and send police reports and identification on debts they knew or should have known were not actually fraudulent but "misidentified"), Afni came into posession of identity information on people unrelated to the actual debts they are collecting on, failed to take reasonable steps to secure that information, and that information was then used for criminal activity by their employees?

What would be their liability?

ChoicePoint's direct liability to consumers for negligence in their data breach was apparently weak, yet still prosecutable by FTC under the FTC Act. The argument was that because the consumer had no account with them directly, and the information was forwarded by third parties, they had no fiduciary duty directly to the consumers damaged.

Presumably, if your bank had had a data breach, they would have had such a fiduciary duty. Your credit card company would, too, although they appear to dance around the federal 60 day FCBA fraudulent transaction reporting period.

Afni is claiming either to have an account the consumer owes (the PP basis for their pulling soft inquiries on consumers), which might also establish such a fiduciary duty (or other obligations under federal record disposal laws), or they can admit the account was not owed by the consumer they dunned and they had no basis to assume it was, in which case their deceptive tactics were what resulted in the disclosure of consumer identity information to which they were not entitled. A dilemma. Maybe tort law applies.

 

Another recent report:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/83319/thread/1169957908/Message+For+All


Note that there is also some misinformation here. I would never put "this is not a refusal to pay" in a validation request letter (If it's not my debt, or you can't validate, you can bet I will refuse to pay!), as that is meaningless and I would want it clear that I am disputing the debt to trigger the FDCPA requirement that any party notified of the debt must also be notified that it is disputed.

This example is more concise and to the point:
http://www.pennlawyer.com/validationltr.pdf

 

It would appear that, among other resources, Afni uses lexis-nexis to "locate" people:
http://www.lexis-nexis.com/clients/afni/

Here is an old article on errors in ChoicePoint and Lexis-Nexis Accurint databases:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050311-1140-databrokers-mydossier.html

Some comments on limits of Accurint:
http://www.virtualchase.com/ask_answer/personal_information_aggregators.html

http://edwards.orcas.net/blog/archives/000269.html

Summary of useful attorney search tools, along with approximate Accurint pricing:
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2005/jun/sitesntips.html
http://www.co.dupage.il.us/courts/generic.cfm?doc_id=1976
http://www.accurint.com/


A report from an ex-CAMCO employee in 2003 that CAMCO used Accurint both for locating people, and for intimidating them.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff66206.htm

CAMCO was shut down after FTC charged them with many violations. FTC claimed 80% of what they collected was not owed or from the wrong party. CAMCO also appears to have used "pre-texting" to get information on consumers, in this report from Ford Motor Credit.

Not the only leak thru Ford Motor Credit: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17826.html

Note that such information is useful not only for "locating" an alleged debtor, but also for intimidating a consumer who may not even be the correct debtor into paying debts not owed. This use of information for intimidation was clearly understood by this ex-CAMCO employee, and there were reports in the Rockford newspaper from a number of consumers of this practice by CAMCO in the stories following up on the FTC actions.

CAMCO appeared to have access to identity information (including SSN and DOB info) that was unlikely to have been obtained as part of any purchase of old debt, as a number of the consumers against which they were attempting to collect were clear misidentifications (and NOT id theft), including some who were kids when the original debt was incurred, yet they used identity information in an attempt to convince consumers to pay.


Rockford and Bloomington are 133 miles apart on I-39.


If Accurint can be used to obtain SSN and DOB info of arbitrarily chosen consumers (say, thru a sloppy name match), then any verbal claim by Afni that a consumer's identity information was obtained from the original creditor and is "proof" of the legitimacy of a debt is suspect.

 

The "This is not a refusal to pay" validation letter is yet another good example of why you don't want to send a form letter...

Of course, no one would want to use my letters, no one would want to come off anywhere close to my 'attitude'...

A good example, a CA tried to 'educate' me as to their logic that my interpretation of the FDCPA was erroneous...

Well, here's a line from my ITS with accompanying lawsuit...

It really helps that the target claims that their ACA membership status indicates that they are in the top fraction of a percent in compliance with the FDCPA... OOPS... Gee, maybe they shouldn't argue with consumers who are quoting ACA's own compliance department. Not many consumers want to come off sounding *THAT* cocky...

 

In my view, the main intended reader of a dispute and validation request letter is a judge.

That assumes the CA will screw up, which is the case where it might matter.

You want it clear to a judge what the letter was, where it fit under FDCPA, and therefore what the CA's obligations were, so it is clear when they violated.

 

Here is a recently filed police report where a consumer reported an id theft due to Afni's debt claim:
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5X...FT_Inc_2007-1-10%2019-11-1420070110191122.pdf

The initial collection letter was received on 1-8-07, consistent with the upsurge in other reports. The account was vaguely described by Afni as "over two years old". They may very well have known it was much older, but it would not have been to their advantage to disclose it was from the mid-1990s like most reported accounts if that was the case. The implication to the consumer is that it is still within SOL, and still reportable, even if their literal words do not actually say that.

Note that the victim is a current Verizon customer, and Verizon apparently never brought up this alleged unpaid account when he opened his current account. If it was in fact only a little older than two years, Verizon's records would still show it, if the account was actually in the name of the victim.

The implication is that either Verizon's information does NOT identify this account as matching the victim's identity, regardless of Afni's claim, or that like other reports this is probably another old Verizon/GTE account from the mid-1990s for which Verizon has no active records.

In this case, a police officer was dispatched to the victim's home to take the report.


How much is Afni's collection tactic of requiring the filing of a police report in response to their bogus collection letters costing?

 

This consumer filed a series of complaints: BBB, IL AG, USPS, FTC, Bloomington IL Sheriff's Dept., FBI. Afni responded to the BBB complaint (and possibly to the consumer's C&D) by agreeing to close the account. No regulatory complaints produced anything but canned responses. Local Sheriff (Bloomington IL, where Afni is based) was already familiar with Afni and their activities, but did not regard their actions as illegal. Consumer might have gotten a better response from the Florida AG.

A CA shill replied implying the consumer had somehow gotten out of paying a debt they actually owed, but would face continued harassment by the next CA.


http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff235681.htm

"Following suggestions posted here, I sent a very succinct Cease and Desist letter to AFNI and filed complaints with the IL. BBB, IL. State Attorney General, USPS, FTC, Bloomington Sheriff's Dept. and the FBI. The Sheriff's Dept is aware of AFNI, but AFNI, though reprehensible, has broken no laws. I've recieved no response from the USPS or the FBI. The FTC and IL Attorney General replied with a form letter. The BBB sent AFNI a letter of complaint on my behalf giving AFNI 2 weeks in which to reply to which AFNI responded...
...
"Dear Ms. Poe:
This is in response to your letter to Afni, Inc., received January, 24 2007. It is Afni's desire to work with consumers to assist them in resolving the questions and concerns that they may have about their accounts. In that regard, Afni has closed this account and notification will be mailed directly to Mr. XXXXXXX. Please call 866-857-7203 if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this matter.

Sincerely,
Amy Acree, PPS
Afni, Inc.
..."

 

Here are some interesting Afni claims. The complaint is dated 1-11-07, on a debt allegedly from 1998, so it fits into the recent upsurge.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credi...forums/showthread.php?t=261522&highlight=Afni

"I received a bill in the mail from Verizon yesterday on a)and account that closed in 1998 and b)was ID theft committed by my ex-husband. "

Based on other reports on Afni, this may or may not actually be ID theft. It might be the usual misidentification, then Afni claiming ID theft when they find out she is divorced, or it might actually be an account legitimately in the ex-husband's name, dunned to the ex-wife thru records that tie them together. Unless actual Verizon records were sent as validation, they could say anything verbally.

"the statute of limitations begins again when sent to a collection agency."

Common CA deception, in violation of FDCPA.