Clark County Collection Service , LLC (CCCS) is a third-party collection agency based in Nevada. CCCS has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as using false or misleading language in an effort to collect a debt and threatening to take actions that cannot legally be taken. If CCCS has contacted you about past due collection items, make sure you understand your rights before you take action.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Clark County Collection Service was founded in 2001 and incorporated in 2002. The BBB established a profile page for CCCS in 2003. The BBB lists CCCS as a collection agency. Buzzfile estimates CCCS’s annual revenue at $2.1 million and the size of its headquarters staff at 30 employees.
According to its website, CCCS “offers outstanding professional debt collection services unmatched by any other company in the industry.” CCCS states that its “goal is to resolve issues with integrity, honesty, and compassion,” with a vision of creating “formidable partnerships built on mutual trust while focusing on solutions and outrageous results.”
The CCCS website does not provide any detailed information about the types of businesses or industries for whom they collect debts. However, they cite as their list of partners the Clark County Medical Society (CCMS); the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA); the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA); and the Nevada State Apartment Association (NVSAA). Thus, CCCS collects delinquent debts for healthcare service providers and rental property managers.
Clark County Collection Service is a full-service collection agency that “goes beyond collecting through letters and phone calls” and includes “a dedicated department that recovers…money through wage garnishment, bank garnishment, and property liens.” CCCS has made “a substantial investment in the recruiting of the best collectors available in the marketplace” and utilizes “upgraded computer equipment”; “an advanced imaging system”; and the Flexible Automated Collection System (FACS), “the most advanced software in the collection industry.”
CCCS states that its goal is “to operate in a moral and profitable manner where clients and employees dictate company policy,” using its “expertise with all federal and state debt collection regulations” for the protection of client organizations. The Consumers tab identifies CCCS as a bill collector and includes a web-based contact form for comments, but there are no links or references to consumer protection resources, laws, or enforcement agencies.
Who are we? We are Lemberg Law, a Consumer Law Firm
Lemberg Law is a consumer law firm helping victims of collection harassment and abuse. We are ranked A+ by the BBB. We’ve helped more than 15,000 consumers stop harassment and recover money from debt collectors. Harassed? Abused? Misled by a collector? Call our Helpline today! There is no charge unless we win.
The BBB has closed 8 complaints against Clark County Collection Service in the past three years, with 3 complaints closed in the previous 12 months. All of those complaints alleged problems with billing and collections. As of May 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 46 complaints against CCCS. Justia lists at least 6 cases of civil litigation involving CCCS.
Clark County Collection Service, LLC
8860 W. Sunset Rd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone:(402) 331-0103
Website: http://www.cccscollect.com/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely CCCS would sue you for a debt you may not owe or they cannot validate. However, debt collection agencies are known to have summoned debtors to court and garnish wages after a default judgement. Contacting an attorney BEFORE this could possibly happen would be a smart move. We’ve helped thousands of consumers fight back against unscrupulous debt collection harassers. Find out if we can help you too today!
Get Free BBB A+ Attorney. Call 475-277-1600 NOW
Unlawful Debt Harassment? Learn the Law & Sue the Collector.
Absolutely. Here are some Sample Complaints
In November 2017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a judge issued an Opinion in a case alleging Clark County Collection Service had violated the FDCPA. Originally, the plaintiff in this case had incurred about $400.00 in medical debt. CCCS “sent her a letter about it. Included with the letter was a summons and state justice court complaint seeking collection of the debt. The complaint itself stated that the plaintiff…could ‘dispute the validity of this debt’ within 30 days, but that failing to do so would result in a presumption of validity. However,separately,in small print, the summons indicated that to defend the lawsuit, the plaintiff must file a formal written response with the court within 20 days.” The complainant did not understand that what she had received was not just a collection letter, but also a summons to appear in court, so she did not file a response. CCCS subsequently “obtained a default judgment against her in justice court for” almost $800.00. “The debt had doubled in the intervening month because it now included costs, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees.” The plaintiff “filed suit against CCCS and its law firm, stating that they had engaged in misleading practices under …Section 1692e(1).” Specifically, by“stating that the debtor could dispute the debt within 30 days of receipt, when the actual summons required the filing of an answer in court within 20 days,” CCCS had allegedly misled the plaintiff about her rights under the FDCPA. She further alleged that CCCS’s name “impermissibly implied affiliation with the Clark County government, violating…Section 1692e(1).”
Clark County Collection Service responded by requesting “the justice court to issue a writ of execution against” the plaintiff based on their original default judgement, for an amount just over $800.00, which reflected the addition of more fees and costs. CCCS’s “strategy in seeking the writ was not to obtain personal property to satisfy the judgment,but to acquire the rights to the plaintiff’s FDCPA lawsuit against the agency so it could have it dismissed.” The court granted the writ, and “the sheriff sold the plaintiff’s lawsuit in an auction sale on the Clark County courthouse steps…CCCS bought the claims against itself for $250.00” CCCS then “moved in federal district court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff ‘no longer possessed any rights of action in this case, and no longer possessed any standing to sue.’ The district court dismissed” the plaintiff’s case.
The plaintiff appealed this decision, and the November 2017 hearing was held to determine the verdict. After evaluating arguments on both sides, the court found that “in addition to evading liability and preventing the plaintiff from pursuing her potential federal claims, the collection agency has literally used the execution mechanism to collect debt from the plaintiff.” Although CCCS argued that she “has received the benefit of the $250 reduction in her judgment,” the court stated that “a debt collector cannot be allowed to use state law strategically to execute on a debtor’s FDCPA claims against it under the guise of legitimate debt collection.” The FDCPA allows debt collectors to collect what they are legitimately owed, but the FDCPA does not “authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors… Debt collectors cannot evade the restrictions of the FDCPA by forcing a debtor’s claims to be auctioned, acquiring the claims, and dismissing them. To allow otherwise would thwart enforcement of the FDCPA and undermine its purpose.” As a result, the court reversed the previous decision in favor of Clark County Collection Service and returned the case to district court for further action.
Federal laws protect you. The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) regulates the behavior of collection agencies by prohibiting actions such as the use of abusive or threatening language; harassment; or the use of false or misleading information to collect a debt. The FCRA regulates how collection agencies and creditors report delinquent debts to credit reporting agencies. Additional consumer protection laws include the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
But here’s the rub: If you want to enforce your rights, or recover money for violations — you need to sue. These laws provide individuals like you with a means to seek monetary damages in court. For example, the FDCPA allows consumers who have been violated to recover damages of up to $1,000, plus attorney fees and court costs.
You may have a case, if…
“I have to admit, I was not sure of y’all initially but you proved me wrong. You not only got the calls to stop but you have the company to dismiss the accounts once and for all! It had been more than I anticipated.”
“Prior to contacting you, we had tried repeatedly to handle this matter without threatening litigation. In the end, not only were they unapologetic, but they were dismissive – even of an attorney friend who called on our behalf. Sincerest thanks for resolving this matter for us!”
“Lemberg Law has saved me from the endless calls, and harassing voicemails. They really do go to bat for you. I didn’t know that debt collection agencies can end up paying your legal bill. What a surprise, to receive free legal help. I’m very grateful for all the hard work they did to finally give me my life back.”
“Thank you and your team at Lemberg Law for the exceptional work you did on my behalf. I have never experienced the level of care, professionalism, timeliness in follow-through, and monetary compensation obtained through your firm.”
We can absolutely help. Call us today.
Share your story
Have you had a bad experience with this agency’s debt collectors? Sound off and share your experience with other visitors in the comment box below.
Sergei Lemberg is an attorney focusing on consumer law, class actions related to automotive issues, and personal injury litigation. With nearly two decades of experience, his areas of practice include Lemon Law (vehicle defects), Debt Collection Harassment, TCPA (illegal robocalls and texts), Fair Credit Reporting Act, Overtime claims, Personal Injury cases, and Class Actions. He has consistently been recognized as the nation's "most active consumer attorney." In 2020, Mr. Lemberg represented Noah Duguid before the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case Duguid v. Facebook. He is also the author of "Defanging Debt Collectors," a guide that empowers consumers to fight back against debt collectors and prevail, as well as "Lemon Law 101: The Laws That Lemon Dealers Don't Want You to Know."
See more posts from Sergei Lemberg
