A Response to “MI Repo Forwarder and Credit Union Sued over FDCPA Violations”


Grand Rapids, MI – October 22, 2012 – Collections and Repossessions are a tricky deal. Those of us in this business know this. Many times, the people we are dealing with are not of the highest integrity or ethical standards, and it is unfortunate when such people vilify those of us who hold these standards high. Although in our country we all say “innocent until proven guilty,” unfortunately, a rush to judgment is in our nature, and in fact this article has already caused us to lose business before affidavits are even answered.

While I appreciate the fact that the aforementioned article was spotted throughout with “alleged” and its various derivatives, after reading this article one couldn’t help but think that some greater evil occurred. Definitely not the case. Whether in the Credit Union business or the Repossession business, no one is exempt from the possibility of a frivolous he/said she/said type of lawsuit and when it make headlines, all sorts of conjectures are raised.

Following are some very important clarifications. The article is hinged on the assumption that there is a fine line, in fact a “slippery slope” between repossession and collection activities and that Repocast.com crossed this purported line. Well, in Michigan we/Repocast.com are indeed licensed and tested to be both. Our license, attached here, clearly shows a “collection agency license” from the State of Michigan. The qualifying test was 90% questions of collection agency issues and 10% repossession company issues. The difference is in the bonding and whether you take clients funds into your accounts. We do not take clients funds but direct them to the lending institutions. We can assist to collect debts as licensed in the State of Michigan. That makes the thesis of the earlier written article invalid. Operating as a debt collector is exactly what our license states from the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs – Collection Practices Board.

A few other points of clarification. The article contends “The Credit Union allegedly hired Repocast.com to either repossess the vehicle or “coerce” Ms. Garcia into paying current.” Those in the Credit Union profession know that would be a clear violation of FDCPA. Our client did nothing of the sort. Again, this shows the basis of these allegations as preposterous.

Lastly, there is an implication of our subcontractor as a felon. Yes, this man 14 years ago served his penalty and has since proven to be a successful, rehabilitated member of society, and yes, a couple years ago we did agree to utilize his services. His story is exactly what our judicial system is structured to do, and we are proud to be a part of his success.

Repocast.com, one of the defendants in this case, is a company that has built our business and reputation on solid and ethical business practices. We have repossessed and/or sold tens of thousands of vehicles, RVs, Boats, Bikes, etc. In fact we have sold over 1 million items through our online auction system that serves over 150,000 registered bidders from across the nation/ globe. This is an unfortunate and a very rare issue to have alleged against us in all these years and amount of trade we have performed. Our management team, along with our legal team, works constantly in the ever changing business environment to keep up with the latest technology, information and legal changes that affect our industry and will continue to do so. No one is exempt from accusations and suits. We are and will continue to vigorously defend our reputation and our rights.


Scott Miedema,

COO and Co Owner,


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 thoughts on “A Response to “MI Repo Forwarder and Credit Union Sued over FDCPA Violations”

  1. Repoboy – The point is exactly that, the rebuttal states that Repocast.com is indeed a debt collector. The point of the original article stated that we are not – A totally false statement. And yes Repocast.com have to and does comply with FDCPA – We are a licensed debt collector and repo agency.

  2. Every attorney’s nightmare. A client going to the media and making all sorts of statements that will be used against it.

  3. You may want to dump your current “legal team” if they are telling you that you are not subject to the entire FDCPA because you “do not take clients funds but direct them to the lending institutions.” Discussing money with the debtor makes you a “debt collector” even if as you say you “do not take clients funds” and instead “direct them to the lending institutions” to make payment. Your statement that “We can assist to collect debts as licensed in the State of Michigan” acknowledges that you are a “debt collector” and makes you subject to the entire FDCPA.

  4. Don’t be naiive. Banks and credit unions regularly use repomen to ‘coerce’ debtors into paying. Contingent work has created this opportunity, and the lenders love it. Where else can you get a $60000 tow truck, an experienced pro at the wheel, and $3 million in insurance in your debtors face for free? I can’t tell you the number of times the lender has transposed maker/comaker info to get us to contact the co first. Coincidence? I think not. Or even leaving the driver info out…oops, sorry. By the way, cancel that account. It’s paid current.

Leave a Comment

Skip to toolbar