Metropolitan Agencies , Inc. (MAI) is a third-party collection agency based in Oregon. MAI has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as failing to verify debts and harassment. If MAI has contacted you about delinquent collection items, be sure you understand your rights before taking action.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Metropolitan Agencies Inc was founded in 1982.The BBB established a profile page for MAI in 1998. The BBB lists MAI as a collection agency. Buzzfile estimates MAI’s annual revenue at $1.1 million and the size of its headquarters staff at 14 employees.
According to its website, MAI is “a collection agency for the 21st century.” The MAI website consists of only one page and does not provide any detailed information about the types of business or industries for whom they collect debts; their business practices; or their regulatory compliance polices.
Instead, they provide an overview of their collection philosophy, which states that an “important factor in hiring an agency is to determine if their philosophy is right for the client’s collection needs.” In addition, Metropolitan Agencies states that it uses a “professional and firm approach to debt collection”; “maintains relationships with …business customers, …medical customers, etc.”; “believes there is a more effective approach than being forceful and intimidating”; and recognizes the importance of concerns “about negative publicity for client businesses.”
The MAI website also contains a web-based contact form and phone number. However, 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 1 complaint against Metropolitan Agencies in the past three years. That complaint was closed within the past 12 months. The complaint alleged problems with billing and collections. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has not posted any complaint data about MAI. Justia lists at least 1 case of civil litigation involving MAI, but it involved allegations of sexual harassment of an MAI employee by MAI management, rather than a consumer complaint about FDCPA violations.
Metropolitan Agencies, Inc.
316 NE Johnson St.
McMinnville, OR 97128-4319
Telephone: (503) 472-2194
Website: http://www.metropolitanagencies.com/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely MAI 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 June 2018, a complainant alleged that Metropolitan Agencies, Inc had been involved in extensive harassment while trying to collect a debt that he did not owe. According to the complainant, he and his family had “been subjected to continuous harassment by” MAI for the previous several years via “daily phone calls, threatening language, numerous letters, including leaving letters on the door handle of his house.” The complainant also stated that MAI had “filed a baseless lawsuit against him and threatened to damage his credit.” Allegedly, MAI had “accepted this case from another company which was representing a towing company.”The complainant provided the “details of the case,” which originated when he “bought a car for his nephew…After a short period of time, he decided to sell it due to a change in… plans.” The DMV had “advised him not to get a new title in his name, since it takes from 4 to 6 weeks to get the new title, and he was trying to sell it as quickly as possible.” Instead, the DMV told him to “use the title which was signed by the previous owner and just write a bill of sale to sell the car,” which he did. However, “the person who bought the car had apparently abandoned it, and a towing company had towed the car and… sold it in an auction.” The towing company then “tried to reach out to the complainant and the registered owner to pay the towing bill.” However, “neither the registration nor the title had been in the complainant’s name at any time.” The complainant assumed that “the towing company or collection agency must have obtained his information from the registered owner who sold the car to him.” Regardless, “this case had been previously resolved with the towing company and previous collection agency after the complainant gave them the pertinent information, which cleared him as the responsible party.” As a result, he was “puzzled as to how the case resurfaced” with MAI.“Despite his continuous communication with MAI,” the complainant alleged that “they proceeded to harass him and finally filed a lawsuit against him…This case was later dismissed by MAI after he resubmitted all the documents (bill of sale, DMV docs, etc.) to prove he had no responsibility in the matter.” However, “MAI failed to inquire about the appropriate documents and information from the DMV and other owners of the car in question despite the complainant’s repeated requests.” The complainant stated that “MAI should have worked with the DMV and towing company to obtain the appropriate documents before proceeding to harass and sue” him and that ensuring the validity of the claim was their responsibility.
In response, Metropolitan Agencies, Inc denied all responsibility, stating that they “categorically deny that their staff was guilty of any inappropriate behavior.” They stated that the complaint was forwarded to them “from an agency in Washington State,”; and that the “records for the car in question all resided with Washington DMV, which they had no ability to access.” They said they had contacted him by letter and by phone and decided to file a lawsuit only after his wife had expressed no interest in discussing the matter. MAI acknowledged receiving documentation clearing the complainant from liability and subsequently dismissing the lawsuit. However, they denied that their actions amounted to harassment and instead accused the complainant of harassment because he had sent letters and email messages “expressing concern that his credit was impacted and demanding proof the case was dismissed.” MAI accused the complainant of extortion. The complainant rejected MAI’s attempt to resolve the complaint.
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