Oliphant Financial is a debt collection agency, which receives a lot of consumer complaints to our law firm for debt harassment. Find out who they are, why they might be calling, and how you can stop them.
Oliphant Financial, LLC (OFL) is a debt purchaser and third-party collection agency based in Florida. OFL has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), including failing to verify debts and using false or misleading information to collect a debt.If OFL has contacted you about past due financial obligations,make sure you know your rights before you respond.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Oliphant Financial, LLC is a legitimate collection agency founded and incorporated in February 1992. The BBB established a profile page for OFL in April 2002 and has been a BBB-accredited business since 2007.
According to its website, OFL is “one of the original debt purchasing organizations in the United States.” In response to an “an ever-expanding debt industry,” OFL has “diversified its corporate purpose to include varying sectors of the debt industry, including: debt buying/selling, debt servicing, and legal/agency outsourcing.” OFL “strives to maximize revenue while minimizing risk…and perceives itself as an industry leader with regards to the ethical and legal application of debt servicing.”
Oliphant Financial purchases delinquent and non-performing accounts from lenders representing a variety of industries and business, including credit card receivables; retail private label cards; consumer loans; installment loans; lines of credit; automotive lenders; Chapter 13 bankruptcies; telecom and utility service providers; education lenders; judgments; real estate mortgages; and small business and commercial loans. OFL also conducts the resale of performing, sub-performing, and non-performing receivables; re-performing collection files; and commercial debts.
OFL’s third-party collection division “affords the delinquent consumer an opportunity to resolve his or her outstanding account in an amicable manner” by employing a “strategy…to manage portfolios through a process that encourages high degrees of flexibility with any willing consumer.” OFL’s “approach to working customer accounts… is to utilize state of the art collection strategies and resources to not only reach but exceed each client’s or investor’s desired recovery results.”
OFL cites a policy of strict compliance “with all state and federal laws, rules, statutes, and regulations applicable to debt and credit collection including, without limitation, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.” However, their Consumers page includes only contact information, a link to a payment portal, and a web-based contact form. Furthermore, although they provide links to consumer resources, such as Avoiding Student Loan Defaults; Credit Report & Scores; Debt Payoff Calculator; Roadmap to Saving & Investing; and Consumer Education, none of these links leads directly to information about consumer protection 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.
As of January 2019, the BBB has closed 4 complaints against Oliphant Financial LLC in the preceding three years, with 1 complaint closed in the previous 12 months. All of those complaints cited problems with billing and collections. Since March 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has recorded 15 complaints about OFL. Justia lists at least 6 cases of civil litigation involving OFL.
Oliphant Financial, LLC
PO Box 740882
Atlanta, GA 30374-0882
Telephone: (800) 262-1999
Website: http://www.oliphantfinancial.com/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely OFL 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. You can sue a debt collector. Here are some Sample Cases filed in Federal Court
In March 2010, in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, a judge issued a Memorandum Opinion in a case alleging Oliphant Financial’s efforts to collect a delinquent credit card debt had violated provisions of the Texas Civil Code. In the original case, OFL alleged that 2 consumers (the plaintiffs)had “bought a jet ski and a related item on a Household Bank account” and later defaulted, leaving an unpaid balance of $12,316.73. OFL purchased the debt from Household Bank and sought judgement against the plaintiffs by serving them with a notice on July 5, 2007. In its suit, OFL “sought judgment against them jointly and severally ‘in the amount of at least $12,316.73, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from September 30, 2003 until paid, costs of court, reasonable attorneys’ fees as herein above alleged, and interest thereon in accordance with V.T.C.A., Finance Code Section 304, and for such further relief, to which OFL may be entitled.’” The day after filing the lawsuit, the court sent OFL a letter advising them that, “pursuant to rule of civil procedure 165a, the case was set for dismissal on October 5, 2007,” if certain conditions were not met. Those conditions included a requirement “that if no answer had been filed, or an answer was insufficient to place any fact in issue, OFL was expected to have moved for and have heard a summary judgment or proved up a default judgment before that date.” Second, OFL’s failure to comply with this requirement “would result in the dismissal of the case on that date.”The letter also stated that “liquidated claims and attorney’s fees could be proved up by affidavit submitted with a form of judgment.” An appropriate return of service was filed.
The plaintiffs neither answered nor appeared, so on October 8, 2007, Oliphant Financial moved for summary judgment. However, the court did not grant the request, citing defects in OFL’s petition. Specifically, the court stated that OFL’s petition did “not give fair notice of claim against” the plaintiffs; that “damages could not be accurately calculated, with no written instrument attached to petition; that affidavits are conclusory regarding damages; and that the petition does not articulate how damages were calculated.” The trial court ordered OFL to amend its original petition, with the caution that failure to do so within 30 days “would result in dismissal of the case for want of prosecution.” OFL did not file the amended petition but did file a trial brief requesting the court reconsider its objections and grant default judgement.
OFL’s request was denied and the case was dismissed; Oliphant Financial appealed the decision, and the March 2010 hearing was held to determine the outcome of that appeal. The judge at the appeal hearing upheld OFL’s objection that they had not provided appropriate notice because the court had already determined that the plaintiffs had been appropriately served. However, he also upheld the earlier decision that OFL’s petition was deficient because damages could not be accurately calculated, with no written instrument attached to petition.” Specifically, OFL had cited a 6% interest rate, while the original agreement cited a 21.9% annual interest rate at .06% daily. Furthermore, the affidavits and documents that OFL had submitted cited facts but did not “articulate how damages were calculated.” As a result, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the case for want of prosecution.
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).
Yes. If you want to enforce your rights, or recover money for violations — you need to sue. Federal 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…
“With your help the nagging collection calls have finally ceased! I was thrilled I was also able to get damages from the collection agency. I am unable to adequately express my joy. I am so thankful I made the call.”
“When I first emailed the office, I was not exactly sure what they could do for me. I had an idea, but they responded back with everything I could expect to take place. I never believed I would be receiving a check, it was definitely a silver lining. I highly recommend them to anyone seeking customer legal services.”
“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
Oliphant Financial’s employees need to be in prison. They are absolute frauds. They make settlement offers on the phone, then refuse to put them in writing, saying after you pay the settlement, then they will put it in writing. They make threats, they lie constantly, they steal money they aren’t authorized to collect from people’s bank accounts, and they can’t even produce a written bill, settlement offer, or validation of debt. They’re not debt collectors. We all know they’ve been operating a fraud and extortion ring. Throw them in prison where they belong!