Collection Service of Nevada or CSN is a third-party collection agency based in Nevada. CSN has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), including improper contact or sharing of information and threatening to take actions that cannot legally be taken. If you have been contacted by CSN, make sure you understand your rights before responding.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the BBB, Collection Service of Nevada, Inc. was founded in 1953 and incorporated in 1970. The BBB established a profile page for CSN in 1963. CSN is listed as a collection agency.
According to its website, Collection Service of Nevada is “one of Nevada’s largest collection agencies…with one of the highest recovery rates in the State.” CSN employs a philosophy whereby their “professional collectors and managers identify problems that consumers may have in meeting their obligations and work with them to create solutions.”
Except for medical debt collections, the website for Collection Service of Nevada does not specify the industries for which it collects delinquent debts. CSN offers its collection services on a contingency basis and provides clients with a full-range of services, including regular collection; credit reporting; bill forwarding; skip tracing; consulting and training; free initial setup; runner and delivery services; and customized client reports. CSN also maintains an in-house legal department for “regular collection accounts that do … not yield a result.”
CSN’s Consulting and Training division trains staff in “procedures relating to receivables, bad debt, litigation, …federal and state collection laws, … telephone techniques, patient or client information review, requirements under HIPAA… relating to receivables, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” Both the Creditor and Consumer pages provide links to the FDCPA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Consumer page also provides a link to the Ask Dr. Debt website, which is hosted by the International Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA International).
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 5 complaints against Collection Service of Nevada in the past three years, none of them in the past 12 months. Complaints are split between those alleging problems with billing and collections and those alleging problems with customer service. Since May 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 8 complaints against CSN. Justia lists at least 7 cases of civil litigation involving Collection Service of Nevada.
Collection Service of Nevada, Inc.
777 Forest Street
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: (800) 992-0377
Website: https://www.csn-reno.net/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely Collection Service of Nevada 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 Cases against Collection Service of Nevada, Inc.
In February 1996, in the Supreme Court of Nevada, a judge issued an Opinion in an appeals case in which Collection Service of Nevada was named along with Guaranty National Insurance Company (GNIC) for violations resulting from administrative insurance billing errors that caused the bills for pre-approved medical exams to be sent to collections. The case in February was held to determine the appeal of a previous decision that had awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiffs. In this case, the plaintiffs in 1990 were driving their mobile home when they collided with a speeding car, resulting in injuries to both of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs hired an attorney to represent them and their insurance company (GNIC). The claim was settled in May 1991, and each plaintiff received $15,000 in damages. However, after the claim was settled, GNIC’s claims manager contacted the plaintiffs’ attorney and requested that they each undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) to ensure that the medical bills included in the claim were not excessive. The IMEs were initially pre-approved and prepaid at $900 for both exams. The examining physician completed the exams and, in his report, indicated that additional tests, including x-rays and MRIs, should be conducted to ensure no injuries were overlooked. The claims manager at GNIC approved the additional tests, but she was soon replaced by another claims manager, and during testimony, neither claims manager was able to verify the exact amount that was approved to pay for the exams. The original claims manager only “contemplated that the tests would cost approximately $6,000.” When the plaintiffs arrived at the testing center for the additional tests, they were each given “responsibility forms” to sign, all of which included the statement, “‘Please be aware that as with every medical office the patient is responsible for any medical fees incurred.’” Of course, the exams had been pre-authorized, so the plaintiffs did not hesitate to sign the forms. When the independent medical examiner reviewed the results, he confirmed that the injures supported the finding that resulted in the $15,000 payouts.
What followed was a series of billing errors and miscommunication among the independent medical examiner, the new claims manager for GNIC, Northern Nevada Radiology and Northern Nevada MRI (NNR), CSN, and the plaintiffs. The medical exams were not properly paid for, and NNR sent payment requests to GNIC that were ignored because of the previous authorizations. The plaintiffs were also billed, and ultimately the bills found their way to Collection Service of Nevada for collections. For two years, the plaintiffs were subjected to demand letters and calls from CSN, and the items were erroneously reported as delinquencies to the credit reporting agencies. GNIC attempted but failed to settle the claim with NNR and CSN. In the initial hearing, GNIC’s actions in delaying payment for the exams were determined to have constituted an act of bad faith. The plaintiffs were awarded $75,000 each in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. On appeal in the February 1996 hearing, the court upheld the verdict but reduced the punitive damage award from $1,000,000 to $250,000.
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.
Your debt harassment checklist:
“As we discussed on the phone earlier today, this settlement is perfectly okay to me. I need to thank you and all of your cohorts at Lemberg Law to get a project handled so professionally. Please allow Amy, the first person who contacted me from Lemberg, know how much I appreciate her efforts, kindness, and professionalism.”
“My mom and I want to say thanks to the team of Lemberg Law for all the hard work and effort that was taken to take care of the debt collector and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Because of this, the phones do not ring off the hook .”
“We realize that ours is only one little case among many — and a lot more serious — but are heartened by the fact that you accepted it represented us with a professionalism that belied the dollar amount.”
“I just wanted to let you know we received the check from your office on now and I wanted to take some time to inform you that we really appreciate all of your efforts in this matter.”
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