RJM is one of many debt collection agencies in the industry. Just like all the others, this collection agency must follow the rules and laws that are under the Fair Debt Collection Agency Act. Unfortunately, many of these agencies violate these standards and can be sued by the consumers in which they are seeking to collect debt from.
Are you being harassed? Did a debt collection agency call you multiple times in an attempt to annoy or badger you? Did they call before 8am or after 9pm? Did they use obscene language? It is important that you contact Francis and Mailman right away so that we can start documenting all of these instances.
RJM Acq is a legit collection agency, but from searching the web, we did find mixed experiences and reviews from consumers. It is important to know your consumer rights when dealing with debt collection agencies and to know that you can fight back if you feel as if your rights are being violated. Fight back against scams and debtor harassment with Francis and Mailman!
Harassment is no laughing matter, especially when it has to do with your finances directly. You may already be in a hard or tough place in life, and feeling harassed only adds to your burdens. You need to understand that the law is on your side. Debt collectors and debt collection agencies must abide by a set of rules when trying to recover debts. And if they violate these laws you, as the consumer, may be owed money. Find out if you are able to sue a debt collection company that has been repeatedly harassing you.
Contact our team at Francis and Mailman today to discuss your situation and case. We understand the laws and rules that these agencies must follow and can help you navigate them. You do not have to deal with harassment any longer when Francis and Mailman is on your side.
|Address||245 Eigth Ave., #272|
Farren v. RJM Acquisition Funding, L.L.C.
2005 WL1799413 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2005). Consumer disputed the debt to the debt collector, and the debt collector waited seven months before notifying that credit bureaus of the disputed status. The court found this to be an unreasonable amount of time, and the account should have been marked as disputed earlier. The debt collector attempted to mislead the consumer by stating that they were not a collection agency. Since the debt collection letter clearly stated the facts, they were not held liable for this deception. Debt collector was not held for responsible for attempting to collect on debt that was a result of identity theft because they were unaware of the circumstance.
Ross v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, L.L.C.
2006 WL 752953(N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2006). Defendant attempted to collect on a debt that was discharged in bankruptcy. When debt collector found that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy, they stopped attempting to collect on the debt.