Van Ru Credit Corporation is a full-service Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) corporation specializing in third-party debt collection.Van Ru has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), including illegal communication tactics and attempting to collect debts not owed. If you have been contacted by this debt collector, understand your rights before taking action.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Van Ru Credit Corporation is a legitimate collection agency founded and incorporated in 1953. The BBB established Van Ru’s profile page in 1974. Van Ru is listed as a collection agency with a headquarters located in Des Plaines, IL. Buzzfile estimates Van Ru’s annual revenue at $53.1 million.
According to its website, Van Ru “has been a leader in the accounts receivable industry for more than 60 years.” They employ an experienced staff trained to deliver consistently “high-performance results by customizing solutions to the unique needs of each client serviced.” Van Ru offers collection services for lenders in education, energy, financial services, government, healthcare, and telecommunications.
Van Ru cites a six-point strategy for effective debt collection, including approach, technology, security, stability, performance, and capacity. Their first- and third-party specialized services employ a variety of techniques, including administrative wage garnishment; appointment setup and verification; bankruptcy follow-up; collector training; cross-sell telemarketing; cure programs; customer care services; deceased/probate collections; delinquency prevention programs; dispute hot line services; enhanced portfolio collection programs; fraud hotline services; legal forwarding; and more.
They back their services with multiple locations, a staff of over 700, and technological capabilities that enhance their ability to provide “support for real-time and scheduled events or tasks; contract compliance modules to insure contractual obligations are met; [ensure] Automatic Number Identification (ANI) to capture the telephone numbers of originating incoming calls; [expand] skip tracing and credit reporting resources; [improve] data archival and retrieval”; and more.
Their website is entirely client-facing and does not provide any links or references to consumer protection laws, agencies, or resources. Their Consumers page only provides contact information.
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 October 2017, the BBB has closed 52 complaints against Van Ru in the preceding three years, with 10 complaints closed in the past 12 months. Complaints are fairly evenly split between problems with billing and collections and problems with advertising and sales. Since March 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 47 complaints against them. Justia lists at least 22 cases of civil litigation naming Van Ru as a defendant.
Van Ru Credit Corporation
P.O. Box 30295
Chicago, Illinois 60630
Telephone:800-468-2678
Website: http://www.vanru.com/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely VanRu 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 October 1990, in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a judge issued a ruling on a plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a case alleging Van Ru had violated several provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that Van Ru had sent collection letters that used “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt.” Specifically, the letters failed to include the notice provision required by Section 1692e(11) …[and] obscured the validation notice. Furthermore, Van Ru allegedly “threatened to sue when [they]did not intend to do so;…did not honor the dispute notice; and…misrepresented the effects of suit.”
The court dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ motions. The letter stated, “WE DO NOT BELIEVE YOU WANT US TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION,” and contained a form captioned, “‘FINAL NOTICE…OF RECOMMENDATION BEFORE SUIT,’ and warn[ed] that ‘[l]egal action will be recommended to the creditor.’”The court did not agree with the plaintiffs “that the term ‘action’ would be interpreted as ‘lawsuit’ by an unsophisticated consumer.” Also, “the notice clearly states that ‘legal action will be recommended’ and, hence, is not a representation that the debt collector intends to or has the ability to litigate.”The plaintiffs did not produce any specific evidence that Van Ru continued collection efforts after written notice to cease and desist, so their claim was denied in that regard, as well.
However, during the hearing, Van Ru conceded that the letters they had sent “did not disclose that they were attempts to collect a debt and that all information obtained as a result thereof would be used for that purpose,” as required by Section 1692e(11) of the FDCPA. As for obscuring the notice that the plaintiffs had 30 days to dispute the debt in writing, the court found that “the notice obscured the fact that written communication was required before the collection agency would obtain verification of the debt and cease collection activity,” and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Van Ru did not contest the plaintiffs’ charge that the “list of consequences that might result if the creditor obtained a judgment were misleading” and in violation of the FDCPA, so the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
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…
“I was so excited when you told me about the positive outcome of the lawsuit. If the need ever arises again, I will not hesitate to call your office or recommend your law services to a friend in need.”
“Thank you, thank you, thank you! I couldn’t be happier with all the hard work your office has done for me. I feel throughout the whole process I was kept informed, and my questions were always answered completely. The calls have stopped, I no longer have a mountain of junk bills piling up, and I owe it all to Lemberg Law.”
“I found your website. I filled out the information and much to my surprise received a call back within the hour. She listened intently and addressed each one of my concerns. She immediately forwarded me an email and advised I would not be charged for services rendered. She made me feel confident and assured, and that someone was in my corner.”
Chances are good that we can help. Call us today and we’ll explain.
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
