Specified Credit Association , Inc. (SCA) is a third-party collection agency based in Missouri. SCA has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as failing to verify debts and using prohibited communication tactics.If SCA has contacted you about past due collection items, make you understand your rights before you take action.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Specified Credit Association was founded in 1994. The BBB established a profile page for SCA in 2007. The BBB lists SCA as a collection agency. Buzzfile estimates SCA’s annual revenue at $1.3 million and the size of its headquarters staff at 12 employees.
According to its website, SCA “began with the purpose of assisting local businesses in recovering and managing their outstanding accounts receivable.” Since then, SCA has “realized an increased demand from…clients for more comprehensive services designed to… reduce costs, …increase operational efficiency and cash flow, and… reduce bad debt write-off and days outstanding.”
The SCA website does not provide any detailed information about the types of business or industries for whom they collect debts, stating only that their “purpose is to provide…clients with unmatched support, service, and financial growth.”
Specified Credit Association offers collection services in four areas—receivables recovery; legal and litigation; post-judgement; and reporting and auditing. SCA’s receivables recovery division uses “a collections management process that is tailored uniquely to the client’s customer base…from initial customer contact, to developing payment options, to implementing automatic payment plans.” SCA’s legal and litigation services utilize a network of attorneys to collect debts when “the only alternative is legal action.” Their post-judgement collection services include “securitizing, garnishments, attachments, and levies.” SCA also provides clients with “detailed reporting of …activity, payment logs, current balances, and collection success rates.”
The SCA website does not provide any information about their regulatory compliance policies. The “Pay Your Bill” page includes a “Mini Miranda” identifying SCA as a debt collector and requiring site visitors to confirm that they are either the debtor or a legally qualified representative. 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 2 complaints against Specified Credit Association in the past three years, one of them closed in the previous 12 months. Both of those complaints alleged problems with billing and collections. As of October 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 6 complaints against SCA. SCA lists at least 4 cases of civil litigation involving SCA.
Specified Credit Association, Inc.
2388 Schuetz Rd., Suite A-100
St. Louis, Missouri 63146
Telephone:(314) 209-1566
Website: http://www.specifiedcredit.com/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely SCA 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 March 2012, in US District Court for the District of New Jersey, a judge issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in a case alleging Specified Credit Association had violated several sections of the FDCPA. In this case, the plaintiff had incurred consumer debt that he had become unable to pay. Eventually the debt was assigned to SCA for collection. A year prior to the case, the plaintiff“received a voicemail on his cellular phone left by…an agent of SCA, in which the SCA representative stated that he was ‘calling regarding Case 158642.’” The SCA representative “did not identify where he was calling from and did not state that he was a debt collector.” A few weeks later, the plaintiff received a collection letter from SCA with the following wording: “Please contact SCA’s office immediately to discuss payment regarding this delinquency.” In addition, the “bottom of the letter contained a thirty-day validation notice… instructing that the debt would be assumed valid unless the plaintiff notified SCA within 30 days that the validity of the debt was disputed.” The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that SCA’s phone call violated the FDCPA because the SCA representative “failed to identify himself as a debt collector, and…by referring to the plaintiff’s situation as a ‘case,’… attempted to mislead the plaintiff into believing that the call was regarding a legal matter.” He also alleged that the letter’s statement that he should contact SCA “immediately to discuss payment…contradicted the thirty-day validation notice requirement at the bottom of the letter, and that as a result, the plaintiff was not properly advised of his legal right to dispute the validity of the debt.”
The court stated that the FDCPA prohibits “the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity”; and that “failure to disclose in an ‘initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose’ violates this provision.” In addition, any “collector who makes a ‘false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney’” has also violated this provision. As for the letter, the court did not agree that SCA’s request for the plaintiff to contact them immediately contradicted or overshadowed the 30-day validation notice, because no demand for payment was made and the validation notice appeared “under a heading… which reads,‘IMPORTANT NOTICE:PLEASE READ.’”
Attorneys for Specified Credit Association failed to appear at the trial for this case, so the plaintiff requested that the court enter a default judgement in his favor. The court agreed. However, because they regarded the violation as “technical in nature,” they reduced the amount of statutory damages to $100.00. They also awarded court costs and attorney fees, for a total of $3,535.00.
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
