The Attorney General of Colorado has reached a settlement with a Texas-based collection company after an investigation found it allegedly sent letters that appeared to come directly from a medical provider and placed repeated collection calls beyond limits set by state law. The agreement resolves allegations that the collector used deceptive communication practices while collecting ambulance-related medical debts from Colorado consumers.
The settlement announced by Attorney General Phil Weiser resolves claims involving Credence Resource Management. According to state investigators, the case centered on how the company communicated with consumers regarding medical debts owed to an ambulance service provider.
Key findings included:
- The company allegedly sent more than 1,100 letters to 541 Colorado consumers that appeared to come directly from the medical provider rather than from a debt collector.
- Some letters used the creditor’s name and referenced a mailing address that actually belonged to the collection company.
- The communications suggested the creditor itself was contacting consumers to resolve unpaid balances.
State investigators concluded this could create the misleading impression that the communication was not coming from a debt collector.
The investigation also identified call activity that exceeded limits under Colorado’s debt collection law. In one instance examined by regulators, the company placed 146 phone calls to a consumer over a three-month period, including several weeks in which more than seven calls were made within seven days.
Colorado law limits the number of collection calls that can be placed to a consumer within a defined period.
Under the agreement with the Colorado Department of Law:
- The company will pay $43,500 to the state.
- The funds may be used for investigation costs, consumer protection enforcement, restitution, and consumer education efforts.
- The company must refrain from using deceptive or misleading representations in debt collection communications going forward.
The agreement also requires the company to clearly identify itself when communicating with consumers while collecting debts on behalf of creditors.
Importantly, the settlement states that the company does not admit wrongdoing and maintains that its programs for handling first-party and third-party collections complied with applicable laws.
