SALT LAKE, UT ( — It doesn’t matter how a lot of a morning individual you’re: No one enjoys answering an sudden knock on the door at 7 a.m., not to mention from somebody you don’t know. Now think about the stranger is there to inform you you’re being sued over a debt that isn’t yours. That’s a tough strategy to begin the day.

For Rich Snapp, that was the morning of Sept. 16, 2015. It was a nasty Wednesday, nevertheless it was just the start of a weird and irritating ordeal that lasted greater than seven months and concerned a persistent debt collector, the native police division, a (probably) fictional thief who goes by “Pistol Pete” and the Girl Scouts of Utah.

Snapp was a victim of fraud: Someone used his previous checkbook to purchase $36 of Girl Scout cookies, the verify bounced and the Girl Scouts of Utah employed a debt collector to pursue the one that appeared to have written the dangerous examine. In reality, they went after Snapp for $455.89, together with the unique $36, plus curiosity, lawyer charges damages and different charges a collector can cost underneath Utah law.

“I’m annoyed, mostly because, obviously, I didn’t do anything wrong to begin with,” Snapp stated in an interview with in July, after the courtroom motion over the debt had been dismissed. “This weighed on my conscience, if I was going to have to do more or if I was going to get into trouble.”

The state of affairs bothered Snapp on many ranges. The early morning courtroom summons, disagreeable telephone calls with the debt collector, having to show he was a victim of fraud, the months of ready for a decision — he felt he was wronged, however a investigation didn’t discover any situations of wrongdoing on the half of the debt collector. What we discovered is one thing many individuals who’ve had comparable points know to be true: Even when a debt collector does the whole lot by the guide, it’s typically nonetheless a horrible expertise for the buyer.

Don’t Underestimate the Threat of Identity Theft

Before any of this might occur, somebody needed to take Snapp’s checkbook. In December 2014, Snapp moved, and through this course of, he discovered an previous checkbook from a closed account. Because every little thing within the checkbook was not correct — every thing besides his identify — he tossed it within the trash.

“I probably should have shredded it,” Snapp stated. “I didn’t really think about it, because it was an account that had been closed a year.”

READ MORE: NBC4 to host Shred It Day 2016

As he loaded his shifting truck, Snapp noticed a person with a flashlight rifling by way of the dumpster behind his condominium complicated.

“I actually went upstairs to look up (laws) on the internet, because I was a little bit miffed. I knew I had just chucked my stuff in there,” Snapp stated. “There was no law against it in the city I was in. I was pretty sure I didn’t throw out anything that was a big deal.”

A couple of months later, Snapp acquired a name from the Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake informing him that they had discovered one of Snapp’s checks on a person who had been arrested. The examine for $350 was written out to and endorsed by the person, in line with the police report, and the person informed the officers the examine was given to him by a person often known as “Pistol Pete.”

The police report is dated April 18, 2015. What Snapp didn’t know is that a month earlier, somebody had additionally used his checks for one thing else: to fulfill a hankering for Girl Scout cookies.

The Girl Scouts & the Debt Collector

So much of corporations don’t settle for checks as a result of they’re a favourite software amongst fraudsters. Rather a lot of time passes between a service provider accepting a examine and the service provider’s financial institution processing the cost, giving somebody a lot of time to stroll away with the products earlier than a vendor realizes they’ve been stiffed. But checks are an essential half of the Girl Scout cookie enterprise: not everybody has money available, and Scouts aren’t usually strolling round with a cellular point-of-sale system to immediately course of a bank card cost.

That’s the path they’re making an attempt to go, in accordance with Janet Frasier, CEO of the Girl Scouts of Utah, however till they’re outfitted to take digital funds, checks are a great choice.

That means taking over the danger that folks will purchase cookies with dangerous checks.

“The precise choice to simply accept checks or credit cards or money is made primarily on the troop degree and the group degree,” Frasier stated. “However, it has been our practice that if checks were accepted by girls and their troops that, should there be bad checks, the council (the Girl Scouts of Utah) … would be responsible. We don’t leave the girls liable for those funds.”

Frasier stated the coverage to pursue individuals who write dangerous checks to the Scouts predates her tenure on the group, however it’s based mostly on the assumption that “when people don’t honor their check, that is basically taking money directly from those girls.”

The meant message: don’t take cash from little women. But to somebody receiving a debt assortment discover over a $36 verify for cookies, it may possibly come throughout one other method: petty. On prime of that, Frasier stated that the quantity of dangerous checks that are available is “extremely low” and the quantity of cash they write off in losses is “extremely, extremely low.”

So why even put forth the trouble to go after individuals?

“That’s a good question,” Frasier stated. “I think that situations like this are exactly what triggers me as a executive to think that we need to go back and look at processes and review how we’re currently looking at things.”

But for the time being, that’s the coverage, and should you write a nasty examine to a woman promoting cookies for the Girl Scouts of Utah, you’re going to seek out your self coping with Cherrington Law Firm, who collects for them.

The Rough Business of Debt Collection

Because the contact info on Snapp’s previous checks was out of date, it’s unsurprising that the debt collector had hassle monitoring him down, and if early debt assortment makes an attempt are unsuccessful, the subsequent step is usually legal motion. The summons Snapp acquired on Sept. 16, 2015, said he had 21 days to answer the summons, and he referred to as Cherrington Law Firm the identical day.

He stated the conversations acquired heated. He stated the debt collector needed private info to verify Snapp’s identity, which Snapp didn’t really feel snug giving, and ultimately, the individual hung up on him. He referred to as the police division and requested for the file quantity on the police report detailing the “Pistol Pete” stolen verify incident, however when he referred to as again the debt collector with the file quantity, the individual on the telephone stated it wasn’t adequate to show he was a victim of fraud. He would wish to acquire a tough copy of the report (which means he needed to go to the police station and pay for copies of the data) and ship it to them. This time, Snapp hung up in frustration.

“I need the consumer’s help to show me that it’s fraud,” stated Lacey Cherrington, an lawyer and proprietor of the debt assortment firm. “Until I can see information from the consumer that it’s not their signature, then I have to continue to assume it’s theirs.”

Cherrington stated she couldn’t touch upon the specifics of Snapp’s case however stated police departments typically aren’t prepared to offer copies of police studies to 3rd-celebration debt collectors — the buyer may have a neater time getting that. As far as Snapp’s frustration for having to pay for the police report ($10) and sending it by licensed mail to the debt collector, Cherrington stated she is sympathetic to that feeling however identified the buyer isn’t the one one caught up within the fraud.

“The consumer needs to understand that the original creditor had to pay bank fees for the returned check,” Cherrington stated. Referring to the out-of-pocket prices shoppers might incur in proving they’re victims of fraud: “That’s a risk we all take to have to show that a debt is not ours.”

What You Can Do About Debt-Collector Woes

It wasn’t simply the charges and the journeys to the clerk’s workplace and the police station that made Snapp sad. He didn’t perceive how the debt collector might legally pursue him for greater than $400, when the dangerous examine was solely $36 (and fraudulent). He researched the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and questioned if his rights had been violated at any level.

For instance, Snapp was irritated when the method server “pounded on his door” at 7:10 a.m., provided that the FDCPA says a debt collector can’t name you earlier than eight a.m. in your time zone. But that was truthful recreation: A course of server isn’t a 3rd-get together debt collector and isn’t topic to the FDCPA.

Snapp stated he felt like he was harassed each time he was on the telephone with the collector, however robust speak isn’t essentially harassment. (Regarding the tense conversations, Cherrington stated: “If there was a phone call that the consumer felt got heated, it was simply us trying to gather the information the consumer needed to show that this was a fraudulent check.”)

After he submitted his written response contesting the debt on Sept. 16, the collector by no means once more initiated contact — the 3 times that they had contact after that, Snapp was the one who reached out. They by no means once more contacted him till he acquired the written discover on May 16, 2016, that the motion had been dismissed. (Cherrington stated this case took longer than standard to resolve however declined to specify why.)

It’s an unsatisfying ending for everybody concerned: Cherrington Law Firm acquired nowhere in resolving its shopper’s situation. The Girl Scouts of Utah are nonetheless out $36 (plus curiosity and no matter financial institution charges they incurred, therefore the steep invoice Snapp was dealing with). Snapp is nervous this might occur once more, as a result of he threw out an almost full checkbook. For the months it took to resolve this mess, he questioned if he was going to get in legal hassle for one thing he didn’t do. Meanwhile, someplace in Utah, another person received to take pleasure in a number of packing containers of Girl Scout cookies. The entire factor is fairly discouraging.

But there are some things you’ll be able to take away from this debacle: Shred every little thing. Keep good data. Know your rights when dealing with a debt collector, as a result of regardless that it’s in all probability going to be disagreeable, debt collectors typically cross the road, and you would sue them for violating the FDCPA. Of course, taking legal motion isn’t low cost, so you can additionally contemplate submitting complaints with businesses just like the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the Better Business Bureau. And, in case you do owe a collector, it’s a good suggestion to find out how the debt could also be affecting your credit score. (You can pull your credit score stories for free annually at and view two of your credit scores for free each month on

More from

This article initially appeared on

Source link

The post Debt collector goes after identity theft victim for $36 of Girl Scout cookies — appeared first on Utah Business Lawyer.

from Utah Business Lawyer


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.