ComplaintsforHunt & Henriques

• Initial Complaint

  07/05/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We signed to make payment monthly to settle a debt. Our bank is Alliant credit union. We called to set up automatic payment monthly and their system does not accept Alliant for some reason. I switch banks to Patelco and called to pay future payment and their system dont accept this bank either. How is this even possible for a firm to not accept payment from two banks. I even gave them the checking and routing. They file a motion in my county trying to *** when theyre the ones not accepting my payment. They asked for a money order in which I was complying at the Time I was working graveyard Its a huge connivence. When Im complying and willing to pay the monthly balance.

  Business response

  07/10/2023

  
  
              Re:       Case # ********
  
  Dear BBB,
  
  This ****** is in Reply to *************************** BBB Complaint wherein **************** expressed dissatisfaction with **** & Henriques moving forward with a request for judgment, claiming that the firm was unable to process payments from either one of ****************** bank accounts. Additionally, he expressed dissatisfaction with being asked to mail in a payment as it was inconvenient. **************** requests correction to his credit report. 
  
  Portfolio ******************** LLC (PRA) is a client of **** & Henriques, LLP (H&H, LLP). *************************** PRA account was placed with H&H, LLP on 06/22/2022 with a balance of $3,644.91.An initial demand ****** was mailed to the consumer on 07/07/2022 and an intent to sue ****** was sent on 08/19/2022. Both ******s were mailed to the consumer at ****************************************************The consumer did not respond to either ******.
  
  
  A collections lawsuit was subsequently filed on 09/06/2022 and the consumer was personally served on 09/22/2022 (again, at **************************************************). The consumer did not file a response to the complaint; however,the consumer's spouse agreed to a conditional settlement agreement in September 2022 on behalf of ****************, with the first payment due 09/30/2022.  
  A notice of settlement was filed with the court as well as a copy of the signed settlement agreement.
  ****************** first payment was not made until 10/14/2022,approximately 2 weeks late. ****************** spouse called our firm on 11/07/2022 and set up payments using an ******************** account. That payment came back as returned unable to locate because it is an online bank, and we are unable to process payments from this type of bank. ****************** spouse was advised of this on 11/30/2022 and was provided the option to mail in a payment.
  Payments were then received by mail in December 2022,January 2023, and February 2023. ****************** spouse called us again on 03/20/2023 and authorized a payment using a ******************** account. The payment was set up using the account information provided by the spouse and it came back as returned, unable to locate on 03/27/2023. The spouse was advised of the returned payment on 03/29/2023 and the importance of making payments timely to keep the account in a paying status. Another payment was received on 05/03/2023;however, **************** was still past due $310 at this point.
  
  A Notice of Intention to Request Entry of Judgment Under Stipulation was filed and served on 05/15/2023, advising **************** to pay the past due amount within 10 days to prevent entry of judgment. With no contact made and no payment received, the firm moved forward with sending the request for entry of judgment per the terms of the agreement to court on 06/26/2023. ****************** spouse called our firm again on 07/03/2023 and was advised that the previous agreement had defaulted, and the firm had moved forward with the request for judgment. ***************** spouse then agreed to a new payment plan and was informed of the possibility that court costs would be added if the judgment was granted.
  
  H&H,LLP does not, and is not required to, report to credit reporting agencies. It is our understanding that a creditor is required to report a paid off debt accurately to reporting agencies within 90 days after receiving the final payment, Thus, PRAs obligation to report the paid off debt has not yet occurred.                                                      
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/21/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  They are creditors and put a lien on property I dont own in regards to my debt. Want **** taken off property . The property is not owned nor has ever been owned by myself.

  Business response

  03/17/2023

  Be advised that we have no record of previously receiving this complaint. It is our policy to promptly and completely respond to all complaints.

  Any information regarding the consumer that is related below is public record.

  Under Code of Civil Procedure  697.340 and all other applicable law, an abstract of judgment never attaches to any specific property and does not attach to the property identified on the face of the abstract merely by the address being stated. An abstract attaches only to interests in real property owned by the actual judgment debtor. In this case, as the abstract clearly states, the lien is on all interests in real property held in Ventura County by the *************************** whose Social Security number ends ****.
  
  Because the effect of an abstract of judgment is a matter of law, any misunderstanding of the above is attributable solely to the person, persons, or entity who fail to understand its legal effect; any harm caused to any third parties, including any property owner, is the sole responsibility of those in error. We hold the position that the effect of the abstract is a matter of law and that we cannot be held responsible for any erroneous interpretations that a bank or escrow company or title insurance company or credit bureau or county clerk or recorder may hold.
  
  Further, our position is that because the judgment debtors Social Security number appears on the face of the abstract, the abstract by definition cannot appear to create a lien on any interest in property held by any person whose Social Security number does not match the number on the abstract. In this case, the abstract obviously does NOT attach to interests in real property held by any *************************** who does not have a Social Security number ending ****.
  
  The judgment is a final legal determination of the respective rights between the actual parties, and the abstract is only a republication of that judgmentit goes no further. As such, there can be no valid or even colorable claim that either the judgment or its abstract are in any way wrongful or have any adverse effect on third parties. It is the non-delegable duty of any person or entity whose occupation requires decisions based on the contents of abstracts of judgment to know the applicable law and not read into an abstract of judgment anything not stated on the face of the abstract. It appears to be a fairly common belief that a lien automatically exists on the address stated in  1.a. or  1.d. of the abstract. This is false. A lien exists on those properties only if the actual judgment debtor owned an interest in those properties at or after the time that the abstract was recorded.

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  04/15/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  this is debt collector who can file a lawsuit in court if you dont pay your bill my deb was under ** , i reached an agreement, but as time went on I needed to adjust my agreement by paying monthly instead of bi weekly they were rude and could not help me isn't this illegal to begin with ? my debt under **

  Business response

  05/03/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/05/03) */ Our client, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, purchased the relevant account together with the right to receive payment of the balance due on the account and placed the account with our firm. Our firm filed an action on the account in the proper court, the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, assigned the Case Number **************************. On December 6, 2021, the consumer contacted our office to discuss resolution of the consumer's outstanding balance. Multiple payment options were offered to the consumer and the consumer agreed to a down payment of $120.46, on or before 12/28/2021, followed by $240.00 per month on or before the 28th 0f each month thereafter with a final payment of $120.00, on or before 6/28/2023. For the consumer's convenience and to work with the consumer's ability to pay, it was agreed that the $240.00, monthly payment could be made in two $120.00, installments so long as the two installments were made by the 28th of each month. To memorialize the agreement and to allow the consumer to resolve the matter without judgment being entered, a stipulation was prepared, signed by the consumer and on behalf of the client. The stipulation was filed with the court and no judgment would enter so long as the consumer paid pursuant to the agreed upon terms. To date the consumer is current in payments. On March 28, 2022, the consumer contacted the firm requesting the outstanding balance. The consumer was provided with the balance. The consumer indicated the possibility of filing bankruptcy but indicated payments would continue until a decision was made. The call ended. The consumer called the same day requesting the monthly payments be reduced by half to $120.00, per month. The consumer was advised any accrued sums under a temporary reduction in payments would have to be made up prior to the final due date in the filed stipulation. The consumer was informed if there was a default under the filed stipulation, a judgment could be entered and a renegotiation of the payment could be considered. The consumer insisted that the consumer wished to avoid judgment and was again advised that any accrued deferral must be made up by the end of the stipulation term. A review of the calls show that the representatives maintained a professional tone throughout and that the multiple resolution options were declined by the consumer. The firm followed all proper procedures in the negotiation and filing of the stipulation and the stipulation is a legal binding document executed by the consumer. The firm will continue to honor the terms of the stipulation. Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2022/05/04) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) They would not help at all I could make the lower payment for a longer period of time. They would not accept that. That is all I could do, they would not budge. Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2022/07/12) */ As with all BBB inquiries, our original response was detailed, factual and accurate. The consumer wanted to modify the terms of the stipulation filed with the court. This could not be done. In our original response the consumer was informed as follows: The consumer was advised any accrued sums under a temporary reduction in payments would have to be made up prior to the final due date in the filed stipulation. The consumer was informed if there was a default under the filed stipulation, a judgment could be entered and a renegotiation of the payment could be considered. The consumer insisted that the consumer wished to avoid judgment and was again advised that any accrued deferral must be made up by the end of the stipulation term. The consumer did not wish to take advantage of the temporary reduction, wished to avoid judgment and chose to continue honoring the signed agreement. The Firm continues to honor the agreement.

• Initial Complaint

  01/26/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This office was hired by **************************** to collect a debt and had file for wage garnishment. I attempted to make payments with the law firm to insure payments post properly with no delay and save myself garnishment fees but law firm denied my request. Garnishments began on Dec. 15,2021 for the amount $484.55, another payment on Dec. 29,2021 for $483.19 a third payment on Jan. 12,2022 for similar amount. On Jan. 8,2022 it was reported to the 3 credit bureau I was still owning the same amounts with no payments made. After calling my payroll department and the Sheriff to verify payments were sent out, I emailed Hunt & Henriquez twice asking if there was an issue with payments and why was the amount owning still the same. With no response I decided to called them directly and all they could tell me was my emails were received and the account is under review. I asked review for what? They said they didn't have an answer because they were limited to access to my account and the only thing they could tell me it's under review. I asked when I could get information about my account, they couldn't tell and could not verify anything about payments. I have contact ******** the collection agency who hired them they said they had no information. For a second time I called Hunt & Henriquez getting the same information that they were unable to clarify anything about my account and didn't know when they will be able to do so. Now 4 payments have been sent with no reflection or acknowledgement of any payment. My payroll department have sent me receipts of payments made. The 3 credit agencies are also not getting updated as they should instead the reflection of balance due is the same as if no payment has been received. It is unfair that they have taken me to court, garnished my wages and now fail to report correctly payments given of over $**** in this last 2 months, plus they do not respond back to emails or calls and can't give any information when someone is reached

  Business response

  03/30/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2022/03/10) */ **************************************** is a client of Hunt & Henriques, LLP (H&H, LLP). **** ** ******* PRA account was placed with H&H, LLP on 05/16/2019 with a balance of ********** an initial demand letter was mailed to the consumer on 05/30/2019 and an intent to sue letter was sent on 07/17/2019. Both letters were mailed to the consumer at ********************************** (the same address sued by the consumer in the BBB complaint). the consumer did not respond to either letter. A collections lawsuit was subsequently filed on 11/21/2019 and the consumer was personally served on 12/01/2019 (again, at **** ***** ***** ******** ** *****). The consumer did not file a response to the complaint. Default judgment was entered on 12/08/2020. After filing and recording an Abstract of Judgment, H&H, LLP applied for an Earnings Withholding Order on behalf of its client, ***. The consumer then filed a Claim of Exemption with the******************* Sheriff's Office on 12/07/2021 (a copy of the consumer's claim of exemption is attached as Exhibit 1). In the Claim of Exemption, the consumer requested that paychecks be garnished at the rate of ******* per pay period. Rather than opposing the Claim of exemption, *** chose to alert the L.A. County Sheriff that it accepts consumer's offer to pay ******* per pay period (PRA's letter to the Sheriff is attached as Exhibit 2). On 01/13/2022, the consumer sent an email to H&H, LLP asking for updates regarding credit reporting and garnishment payments received. The sheriff had apparently begun garnishing funds by the date but H&H, LLP had not yet received any funds from any garnishments. H&H, LLP spoke with consumer on 02/10/2022, when consumer called our office. Consumer spoke with a representative of H&H, LLP and she was advised that H&H, LLP had not yet received any funds from the Sheriff but that we had spoken with the Sheriff and were advised that the Sheriff was holding approximately ********** H&H, LLP then advised consumer that all funds received from the Sheriff would be credited to her account. Subsequently, H&H, LLP received a total of ******* on 02/18/2022 (see consumer's payment activity report attached as Exhibit 3). The Sheriff's Collections (Exhibit 4) shows that three payments ******** ******** and ******* were withheld prior to implementation of the modification. Acting on the modification the Sheriff to date has remitted the three payments of ******** to H&H, LLP. The Sheriff then remitted a refund of ********** to the City Controller's Office for return to the consumer. See Sheriff's Collections. (Exhibit 4). H&H, LLP has no control over the Controller's processing timeline for the return to the consumer. The consumer may contact the **************** Controller's Office regarding the refund. One additional payment of $113.00, has been issued by the Sheriff to H&H, LLP but has not yet been received. The payment will be properly posted upon receipt. H&H, LLP does not, and is not required to, report to credit reporting agencies. It is our understanding that a credit is required to report a paid off debt accurately to reporting agencies within 90 days after receiving the final payment, Thus, PRA's obligation to report the paid off debt has not yet occurred. This firm is a debt collector. Debt collection license application pending.

• Initial Complaint

  12/15/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My account was sent to these people from ****** has a law firm that is supposed to collect a debt and I have been calling them for months to try to pay it and I continuously get pushed around stating that I am not in their system and they have yet to set up my account. This is affecting my credit if their job is to collect my money and what I'm trying to do is pay them then they should be anxious to do their job right.

  Business response

  01/19/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/01/03) */ The consumer's account was transferred to our office having been previously worked by another firm. Prior to taking any action on the account our firm must clearly identify the status of the account, that the account balance is correct and that the statute of limitations has not expired. Due diligence determined that the previous firm had filed litigation to collect the account and dismissed that litigation in 2018. It was also determined that the statute of limitations has expired on the account and our firm would not undertake any action to collect the account. Our firm does not attempt to collect on out of statute debt and per client policy the account was closed in our office and returned to the client. This firm dos not report to any credit reporting agencies and therefore is unable assist the consumer with any credit reporting issues. Any further inquiries should be directed to the creditor at *************.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩