SE HABLA ESPAÑOL | MAP
312-739-4200
Contact Us

Contact Us

Archives

  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013

  • Areas & Topics

    Frquently Asked Questions

    Our Office Location

    Edelman, Combs, Latturner, & Goodwin, LLC

    20 South Clark Street
    Suite 1500
    Chicago, IL 60603

    info@edcombs.com
    Phone: 312-739-4200
    Fax: 312-419-0379


    E-mail Us  |  Chicago Law Office

    Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's facebook page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Twitter Page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Google Plus Page

    “Convenience fees” for making payments may be illegal

    Article from trade publication Inside ARM about one of our cases

     

    The Inconvenient Reality of Convenience Fees
    Mike Bevel May 18, 2015
    You should probably stop charging convenience fees. You also probably won’t listen to me, or to your compliance team

    Nevertheless, it’s a risky prospect, the precedents aren’t terribly clear, and, if a recent case, Acosta v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, is to be believed, it’s against the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and liable to get you sued.

    Here are the facts, per the filing on 29 April 2015:

    The defendant received a collection notice for $524.59. The notice helpfully listed “6 easy payment options,” including one with a convenience fee: “Pay via Credit Card. ($14.95 Chase Receivables processing fee where applicable).” Four of the remaining five options did not include a convenience fee.

    However, the defendant (via her attorney), believes that that $14.95 convenience fee violates the FDCPA in the following ways:

    1692e: False or misleading representations. “A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”
    1692e(2): (2) The false representation of—
    (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or
    (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.
    1692e(10): (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.
    1692f: Unfair practices. “A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”
    1692f(1): (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation [emphasis added, editor) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.
    Was that $14.95 part of the collection? That’s at issue here. Per the defendant’s counsel, the answer is yes, and because it’s yes, 1692f(1) was violated (which dominoed, in a sense, the other sections of the FDCPA). Per the agency, the answer is no, there was no collection intended: the $14.95 should be considered a “pass through.” Additionally, the agency never claimed the processing fee was due, and, too: there were four other options available to the defendant that didn’t have a convenience fee at all.

    The court…didn’t see it that way. Per the court, for there to have been no collection for the agency, then that $14.95 should have gone directly to the payment (i.e., third party) processor.

    And since there was a collection, the court then went on to determine whether it was “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” Which, per the court, this fee did neither: neither expressly authorized, and not permitted by law.

    Which brings us back to the beginning of this piece: convenience fees just aren’t. Acosta tells us this. Quinteros out of New York tells us this. There are incredibly narrow applications for convenience fees; but, for the most part, the risks are too great.

    What compliance folk can do now:

    Examine the agreements consumers sign with your clients. If there is no express language in those agreements stating that past-due accounts sent to collections might incur additional costs, you should not charge a convenience fee.
    Review your internal written policies regarding convenience fees with your own legal counsel — paying specific attention to the sections of the FDCPA quoted above.

    Stop adding convenience fees to transactions. Which, I know, is easier said than done, and a tough conversation to have with operations and management. But the risks, at this point, do not outweigh the benefits at all, and simply open your agency up for lawsuits and unwanted scrutiny.