BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
21 Counties in Central Ohio
Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are You the Business Owner of Levy & Associates, LLC?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

This firm states they are a creditor's rights law firm.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Levy & Associates, LLC meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that lowered the rating for Levy & Associates, LLC include:

  • 24 complaints filed against business

Factors that raised the rating for Levy & Associates, LLC include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Response to 24 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.

Industry Ratings Comparison | Chart


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

24 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 9 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 20
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 4
Total Closed Complaints 24

Additional Complaint Information

BBB can report and pursue general customer service and billing disputes for legal services not involving underlying competency issues. This includes an attorney, lawyer or law firm acting as a collection agent or a debt collector. It has long been our BBB policy to refer inquiries and complaints about the competency of legal services providers to the Bar Association or the Court. If you would like a a background report on an attorney, lawyer or law firm, you may contact the Bar Association in the community or state in where he or she is located. For attorneys located in Columbus, OH, you may call the Columbus Bar Association at 614-221-4112 or www.cbalaw.org. If the attorney is located in Ohio, you may wish to check with the Ohio State Bar Association at 614-487-2050 or www.ohiobar.org. Or the Attorney Registration Desk of the Supreme Court of Ohio at (614) 387-9320 or www.sconet.state.oh.us. As for complaints concerning the competency of legal services, you may contact either the Disciplinary Council of the Ohio Supreme Court at (614) 461-0256 or: Clients' Security Fund Supreme Court of Ohio 65 South Front Street, 5th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 Phone: 614.387.9390 or 800.231.1680 Fax: 614.387.9399 E-mail: csfo@sc.ohio.gov

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

2 Customer Reviews on Levy & Associates, LLC
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 2
Total Customer Reviews 2

Additional Information

top
BBB file opened: October 15, 2004 Business started: 01/01/1995 Business started locally: 01/01/1995
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Supreme Court of Ohio
65 S Front St, Columbus OH 43215
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us
Phone Number: (614) 387-9000

Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. Yale R Levy, Owner Ms. Leighann K. Poplaski Mr. Kenneth Santuzzi, Director of Operations
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Yale R Levy, Owner
Business Category

Collection Agencies Attorneys & Lawyers Attorneys & Lawyers - Bankruptcy & Taxes Attorneys & Lawyers - Collections Law

Industry Tips
Attorneys Lawyers Legal Services Complaints Credit - BBB General Statement For All Debt, Credit TOBs

Additional Locations

  • 4645 Executive Dr

    Columbus, OH 43220 (614) 898-5200

X

What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.

X

About BBB Business Review Content & Services:

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

Professional AffiliationsX
X

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.

X

BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.

X

What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.

X

What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct.

X

Thank you for your feedback!

Help us improve by taking our survey.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.

Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations


Complaint Detail(s)

12/1/2014 Billing/Collection Issues
9/26/2014 Problems with Product/Service
9/3/2014 Billing/Collection Issues
7/29/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have contacted this office twice now to have a garnishment removed from my wages since the judgement has been fulfilled. I can't get them to stop the garnishment even though they know it has been fulfilled because the first time they sent a refund of the over payment after I called and my attorney called. Last week when I was paid they took out another garnishment. This was an old credit card billed that I personally never was notified of a court judgement or garnishment was filed at an address and county that I hadn't lived in for 20 yrs but unfortunately my sister had signed for the certified letters and I was never given the letters. When I found out about the garnishment I tried to work out so they wouldn't garnish my wages and they wouldn't agree to anything even after I hired at an attorney but at this point and time I have fulfilled the judgement want my money that has been paid over refunded. Want the garnishment stopped and want my credit report to reflect the fact the judgement has been taken care of. Would like for Ohio to start dealing with these type of collection tactics the way other states have. By investigating and shutting them down. Thank you for your help.

Desired Settlement: I want my money refunded , garnishment stopped, and my credit report to reflect this judgement has been settled. I want documentation from these people stating that this issue has been taken care of. I have also contacted the attorney generals office and asked that they launch an investigation into the company.

Business Response:

On Wednesday July 2, 2014, we received and posted the garnishment payment which paid/over paid the balance at approximately 3:30 PM.  (The overpayment kicks off a process in our system to start the refund / satisfaction process the next business day.)  However, due to the holiday weekend, we worked half day on July 3rd and did not start to process to refund the overpayment and satisfaction until the next business day, which was MONDAY JULY 7th.   Also on July 7th, the consumer called to inquire about the garnishment and status of the judgment.  The consumer is represented by counsel in this legal matter; The consumer confirmed that she was still represented by the attorney.  We advised her that due to the ethical rules and the FDCPA we are required to communicate with her attorney.   

On July 7th and on July 8th the Garnishment Release and Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment were prepared and sent to the Court, respectively.    On July 8th we sent the consumer's refund check to her.  Additionally, we contacted the consumer's attorney on July 10th to advise him of the steps we had taken with respect to the Court. 

Based on the consumer's complaint, it is clear her employer has not received / not processed the Garnishment release from the Court because she indicates they withheld funds from a subsequent paycheck.  Following her phone call to our office yesterday, we contacted her attorney and left a message for him to call us to discuss.  We have not yet heard back from him.   Additionally, we have not received a signed entry from the Court with respect to the release / satisfaction of the judgment.

We understand that the consumer is frustrated by the process between her employer, the court, our law firm and her attorney.  The process does not always move as quickly as all parties would like/prefer and this can result in items crossing in the mail and/or being delayed.  We believe that the Court is moving as quickly as is possible; hopefully the entry will be signed by the Court soon if it has not already been signed and entered.  (We have not furnished information to the credit reporting agencies so there is nothing for us to update, so to speak, other than the notification of satisfaction which we have sent to the Court.  Upon entry of the Notice of Satisfaction, the Court will show this judgment as satisfied.   

This afternoon, in order to expedite notice to her employer, we faxed a copy of the release/satisfaction that we sent to the Court last week to her employer; as stated we do not YET have the signed entry from the Judge/court.  I have attached a copy of our fax to her employer. 

In terms of the garnishment check her employer has sent to the Court, we will process the refund after our receipt of said funds from the Court if the Court does not release them to her directly.  (Note: if the funds are sent to us, our refund to her will occur as soon as is practicable; this usually occurs in one - two business days after receipt from the court.)  If the consumer would like us to be able to discuss this with her when she calls us, we will need to have permission from her attorney to do so.  Otherwise we will continue to communicate with her through her counsel.

THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.

7/17/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: During a period of time in 2007-2008 I was unemployed and acquired some credit card debt. I was unable to pay this debt in a timely fashion which resulted in a civil court judgment being entered against me by Levy and Associates on behalf of ******* ***. In April of 2014 Levy and Associates requested to garnish my wages in order to pay off this debt. In June of 2014 the garnishment was paid in full and my employer sent them the proper paperwork. My wife, ***** *******, and I have been in contact with Levy & Associates since mid June 2014 requesting the Satisfaction of Judgment paperwork to be filed in ********* ********* *****. We were told numerous times that they were waiting for funds to be sent to them from the court. The clerk of court's office continued to tell us that the checks had been sent. Finally, on July 8, 2014 the representative at extension 220 at Levy & Associates stated that all the paper work had been sent to the court and my case with them was closed. ********* ***** did not receive any paperwork until July 15. On July 15, my wife drove to the court to pick of the Satisfaction of Judgment paperwork but found out that Levy and Associates never filed it. What was filed with the court was actually a Satisfaction of Garnishment. This paperwork does not release me from the judgment or allow me to remove the item from my credit report. Furthermore, until they file the release of judgment paperwork, interest continues to be assessed at the court on the case. The clerk of court's office states repeatedly that the satisfaction of judgment was never filed, while the representative of Levy and Associates continues to state that it was sent to the court. I paid the garnishment in full and satisfied their conditions to settle this debt. I am in the process of obtaining a home loan and I cannot close on my loan until I receive the Satisfaction of Judgment paperwork. NOT the Satisfaction of Garnishment, which is what was sent to the court.

Desired Settlement: I respectfully demand that Levy and Associates file the proper paperwork with ********* ********* *****, civil case number######. The proper paperwork being a Satisfaction of Judgment. I also request that a copy of this paperwork be mailed to my home. I also request that Levy and Associates take care of the interest that has been continuing to be added to my case at the court, even though I have paid this amount in full. The docket may be found here: *********************************************

Business Response:

We want to respond as quickly as possible so we will make this brief in the interest of getting the information to the consumer as quickly as possible.

Levy & Associates LLC mailed the paperwork to release both the  garnishment and the judgment to the Court on the 7th and 8th of July.    The Court posted them to their file on the 14th and 16th.   Both items have been filed with the Court and, in fact, the satisfaction of judgment appears to be available on the Court's website according to the July 16th note on the Court's docket.   I believe the consumer should be able to print the satisfaction from the hyperlink on the court's docket.  Unfortunately we are waiting for a mailed entry from the Court and do not yet have the signed entry. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID #######, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
It appears the problem is/was a processing delay on the part of the court, and a miscommunication between the attorney office

Regards,  ******** ********

4/4/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The consumer wanted to get a complaint filed against the supplier. The supplier is calling in regards to a debt that his son owes. The consumer has told them multiple times they do not have the right person. They continue to call to try and collect. The consumer son is a Jr.

Desired Settlement: The consumer wants the calls to stop.

Business Response: I have searched our records and cannot find an account in the name of "******* ******" nor can I find the telephone number provided by the complainant in our system of telephone numbers we have on files.    Does he know an approximate day and time of the most recent call? At what telephone number did he receive the calls?  Is his son's name ******* ****** also or does he go by another name? Is that who the caller asked to speak to?   I will need more information to determine whether we made the calls and then to stop them.

3/3/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have tried multiple times to settle a collection with Levy & Associates, who is working on behalf of ******* *********** ** *** and have received no correspondence since originally writing them on April 29, 2013.I wrote letters to ******* *********** (to the same address listed on the BBB website) on the following dates:April 2013July 2013December 2013The most recent letter sent was USPS certified with confirmed delivery. The response card shows that it was received and signed for by a D. Rand on December 20, 2013.All of these letters have been in attempt to settle a debt. I have received no response or any other correspondence from Levy & Associates since the letter was received by them on December 20th. Since I have tried multiple times to contact them and received no response, I have no choice but to file a complaint with the BBB.

Desired Settlement: I would like for Levy & Associates to respond to my letters and assist in resolving my debt, since it has been almost a year since I first attempted to contact them.

Business Response:

We apologize for our delay in responding to the consumer's complaint and for the confusion surrounding this account.  This account was closed in our office and was returned to the client last year after we learned that the consumer had moved from ******** to ********.  At this point we can only speculate but believe that may have been the reason we did not respond upon receipt of the earlier communication from the consumer.  

We followed up with the client and they have indicated that we should instruct the consumer to call the creditor toll free at  ###-###-#### in order to discuss payment / payoff options.  

Thank you. 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID #####, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,
********* ******




















12/30/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Levy & Associates submitted documents to my employer that were NOT LEGAL. There is NO court order to garnish my wages. There has never been a court order to garnish my wages. There is NO court order to garnish my wages period! I have never stood before a judge in my life. I cannot be sued under Ohio State Law.Levy & Associates have sent people to my house with documents that were NOT LEGAL. Levy and Associates have harassed me constantly with phone calls. Levy and Associates have mailed documents to me that were NOT LEGAL. These documents were sent via the United States Postal Service.Levy & Associates is a collections agency that uses "Unfair Practices."

Desired Settlement: I have contacted my employer - ********* *** **** ****** ******* *********** **** ***** ###-###-#### or ###-###-#### about this matter.They have not contacted me. I want reimbursement. I want reimbursement of ALL money taken out of my paycheck. Levy & Associates is taking money out of my paycheck that is not legitimate and not legal. The Federal and State payroll taxes coming out of my paycheck are being shorted. The IRS is not getting their full and equal share.

Business Response:

**** ******* ***** ********* *********** **** ************ ********* ************** ******* ** *********************** **** ** ********
Dear *** *******

We are in receipt of your CFPB, BBB and ACA Complaints. We have reviewed your files in our office and will attempt to address each allegation. Levy & Associates has been hired/retained to represent the current creditor (********* *********** **** *** ) in the collection of the judgment in ***** Municipal Court, Case No. ######.

You have indicated that Levy & Associates is impersonating an attorney or official. **** ** **** has been a member of the Ohio State Bar since 1995 and is in good standing with the Supreme Court of Ohio. *** **** is not impersonating an attorney or other official.

You indicated in your Better Business Bureau complaint that Levy & Associates has harassed you with phone calls. We reviewed this file and show that we have made a few unsuccessful attempts to contact you over the past several months. There was one unsuccessful call on July 30, 2013 and two unsuccessful calls in August in which we could not reach you and there was no voice mail set up so that we could leave a message. There was another call attempted on November 12, 2013 with the same result.

You stated that Levy & Associates did not have a legal court order to garnish you wages and that there has never been a legal court order to do so. In fact, our records and the ***** Municipal Court records indicate this judgment is in place in their Court. With respect to the above referenced matter, I have attached a copy of the Certificate of Judgment, the Order of Assignment, along with the Garnishment paperwork filed with the ***** Municipal Court. There has been previous activity on this file, including a garnishment in 2011 and a Deposition under Rule 69 in 2011.

You have indicated that Levy & Associates sent people to your house with papers and we have not done so. The paperwork we have attached from earlier this year also includes our instructions to serve the Motion for Garnishment via mail, not in person. We  did not request a process server, nor a sheriff, nor any other person deliver them to you personally. Based on the Court’s docket record, it appears the 2013 garnishment paperwork was issued via mail.

You have stated that you cannot be sued under Ohio law and that you believe the garnishment is not legal. In order to assist you and to resolve your complaint, it would be helpful to know on what grounds you believe these documents are not legal; upon our review the judgment and garnishment are in order and legal.

We are interested in working with you to resolve your concerns and hope that the information we have provided clarifies the status of the underlying judgment, the nature of the documents we filed with the Court and the documents we filed with your employer for the garnishment. If you have more questions or wish to discuss this with our firm, please contact our office at ###-###-#### Ext ###.

Please note: this communication is from a debt collector.

12/30/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This company has hit me up for the same debt multiple times. I have paid what they said would be a settlement and now they are suing me. I am scared they are gouging me. My father has even paid and confirmed that that would be the last payment and now they are coming after me again.

Desired Settlement: I want them to leave me alone.

Business Response:

We apologize for the slight delay in responding to this complaint; we had reached out to our client to work through a resolution.  This took a few days longer to complete than we had anticipated . 

We reviewed *** ****'s account / case.  Essentially, *** **** has paid $1,600.00 on this account to date to Levy & Associates.  The history with our firm goes back to 2006 on this account when the account was placed with an original balance placed of $1228.39 plus interest, which was accruing. 

We commenced the suit process on or about September 19, 2006.  On or about September 27, 2006 we agreed on an arrangement with *** **** to pay $200.00 per month for nine months with a final payment of $20.00 on a balance of $1820.00, which included the balance and the interest.  The first payment of $200.00 was posted on October 9, 2006.  There was no payment in November 2006 and then a partial payment of $150.00 was made on December 7. 2006.   We proceeded with our Motion for Default Judgment due to the broken payment arrangement; a hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2007.   The Court entered Judgment against *** **** on February 16, 2007.  

We then had communications with *** **** and agreed that we would vacate the judgment and enter into an Agreed Judgment with *** **** based on a payment arrangement which required $200.00 payments starting February 16, 2007 and continuing each month by the 16th of each and every month until the entire balance plus interest and court costs were paid in full.  We  received a payment of $200.00 on February 13, 2007 and another payment of $200.00 on February 20, 2007; then a partial payment on March 29, 2007 for $150.00.   The next payment we received was on June 26, 2007 for $150.00 and then the next payment was three months late on September 28, 2007 for $300.00.   After that we received  partial payments of $50.00 on January 30, 2008, March 13, 2008, and April 30, 2008.  We worked with *** **** over that time period; his payments were not made under the terms of our agreements in terms of total amount to be paid or timeliness of the payments themselves.  However, we understood that he was having financial difficulties and we were trying to work with him on resolving the balance. 

Ultimately, we did not receive the total amount agreed upon and did not receive any more payments after 2008, despite attempts to re-establish contact and payments with *** **** via phone.   The judgment became dormant due to judicial/legal inactivity to enforce the judgment.  We recently moved to revive the judgment and to attempt to collect the remaining amount owed on the debt. While we do not agree that the $1,600.00 *** **** paid over the years actually paid the balance as previously agreed (which was at least the $1820.00 agreed upon at the outset in September 2006), our client has agreed, nonetheless, to consider this account/case settled for less than the full balance based on the payments made to date in order that we may have a resolution to *** ****'s account.  As such, we will file the appropriate documents with the Court within the next two weeks. 

If *** **** has any questions he may contact me at ###-###-#### Ext ###.

Please note: this communication is from a debt collector.

10/7/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The consumer is calling in regards to a letter from Levy & Associates stating she owed $5,674.35. The consumer sent this amount in check form to the supplier. The supplier sent the check back stating that she owed interest and fees. The supplier sent a proof of the debt of $5,674.35.

Desired Settlement: The consumer would like the supplier to accept the check for the amount of $5674.35.

Business Response: We are in receipt of Ms. ******'s Better Business Bureau complaint and have reviewed her account.  Our records indicate that we received a payment from her in the amount of $5,674.35 which was marked with an endorsement for ‘Paid in Full.”  We have filed suit on behalf of our client and thus had added court costs of and interest.  As such, we considered the payment a “settlement” for less than current full balance and had communicated such to Ms. ******.    Upon receipt of the BBB complaint, we reached out to our client to discuss Ms. ******'s request.  We apologize for our delay in responding but we were communicating with our client about Ms. ******'s request.  We have since communicated with our client and spoken with Ms. ******; we have worked out a mutually acceptable payment term to resolve the account per Ms. ******'s request.    If Ms. ****** has any additional questions, concerns or needs an update on the status of her account, she may contact us directly and we will assist her.  

10/3/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Levy & Associates has repeatedly contacted me regarding the debt of a ******* ** *****. This is not me. After confirming this information they will again make the same attempt in six months to a year

Desired Settlement: They need to stop contacting me.

Business Response:

Dear Sir or Madam--

We are in receipt of *** ******* ** ****** complaint regarding the confusion of his contact information with that of a person with a similar name.  We have reviewed the file in question and determined that we removed the ###-###-#### telephone number in July 2011 from the file in question at the request of *** *****, who had indicated we had reached the wrong William Mayes. We located the correct number but in December 2012 we received notice that that number was no longer valid.  We attempted to locate another number and a third party service provided the ###-###-#### number to us as a contact for the file in June 2013.  

Typically, our current program controls would prevent a number which previously  had been flagged as a wrong number from being returned and/or called on that file again.    Essentially, we have processes in place to prevent these sorts of error at a system level;  we are reviewing them again to make certain they are working as expected.  We are still working to determine the root cause that allowed this mistake to happen and apologize for the error.    

In an effort to prevent this from happening to *** ***** again, we have placed the file in question in a hold status / queue so that we will not make any calls on the file.  Once again, we apologize for the error.  If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Ext ###at our office.

Levy & Associates LLC

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

******* *****




















9/3/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have sent 3 letters to Levy & Associates requesting a debt validation and that they contact me only through written communication. Today, July 15 2013, they violated my request and called my home at 1:09 PM. In addition, they have not provided me to debt validation information I requested in a letter dated April 13, 2013.

Desired Settlement: Stop the direct calls to my home and any other telephone numbers in addition to providing the information I requested to validate the debt.

Business Response:

We are in receipt of the BBB Complaint # ******.  We have placed the account in a cease and desist status on our system.  We received a request for validation on April 23, 2013 and requested documents from our client to validate the debt shortly thereafter.  We received a second request from the consumer on or about June 17 2013 and contacted our client to check the status of the request.  Based on the fact that the consumer had moved out of state, our client instructed us to close the account.  

At the beginning of July we received an electronic communication from the consumer indicating she wanted to discuss payment arrangements and would contact us within a few days.  We reopened the account in our system but the account was not placed in a status that would prevent calls due to a mistake on the part of the person reopening the account in the system.  Despite procedures designed to prevent this kind of mistake, the human error resulted in the calls being made to the consumer.  We have corrected the error and apologize for the inconvenience.  The consumer will not receive any more calls. 

Consumer Response: I still do not have the items indicated above.





























Business Response: We have mailed the account documents to the consumer.  Additionally, Consumer filed two CFPB complaints to which we have responded as well.  We respectfully request that we close the BBB complaint as this is also being worked through the CFPB's channels.

8/23/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The consumer has a judgment against her for a debt that is owed. There was a lien put on her vehicle and advised her that she needs to keep the maintenance. The consumer's car is under her name, but it stated that vehicles are exempt. The judgment was put on by Levy and Associates. They are calling the consumer non-stop threatening her. They told the consumer they were going to send a sheriff to collect all her personal belongings that have value.

Desired Settlement: The consumer wants the supplier to collect the right way and if her car is not allowed to be connected to this debt she wants the lien removed.

Business Response:

We are in receipt of *** ********** complaint and have reviewed the account in question.  I believe the source of confusion may have started last October.  She called Levy and Associates twice last October, following a Notice she received  from the firm.  In the first October call she indicated she owed money on the car and was having financial difficulties.  During the second call, our Rep had asked if she had received service of the Writ of Execution from the Sheriff.  She indicated she had not received that paperwork yet but that she still owed on the car loan and she was unable to pay more than the $50 per month previously discussed.   

Levy and Associates never a placed a lien on *** ********** vehicle. In fact, the Writ of Execution action was dismissed on or about July 10, 2013.  I have attached the dismissal of the Writ of Execution for *** ********** records.  (Please note that the underlying judgment is still in place.) After having reviewed the account notes and calls available, including the calls from last October and a few others, we cannot corroborate her allegations with respect to frequency of calls made to her by Levy and Associates nor any statements being made to her about having a Sheriff collecting her personal belongings or a need for her to maintain the vehicle.

We have blocked *** ********** number so it will not be called in connection with this judgment by Levy and Associates.  If *** ******** has any questions or needs more clarification about this, she may call Levy and Associates at ###-###-#### and ask for Extension ####  We will be happy to help.  We apologize for any confusion and want her to know the Writ, which is now dismissed, did not place a lien on her vehicle's title. 

8/16/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint:  The consumer is calling in regards to debt that she does not owe. The consumer has, in writing, disputed the debt. The supplier, Levy & Associates, is harassing the consumer about this debt for ********* *********. The consumer has been dealing with this issue since 11/2012. There is a judgment against her for $2800.00. atty:yes Police Report:yes

Desired Settlement: The consumer would like to have this matter cleared up and no further obligation to this supplier.

Business Response:

We are in receipt of *** ********* complaint.  In a conversation with one of our managers, *** ******* indicated this was the result of Identity Theft from several years ago.  Pursuant to their conversation and *** ********* concerns, we mailed a Identity Theft Affidavit / Packet to her about two weeks ago.  Once we have her completed ID Theft Affidavit, we will provide that to our client and investigate further.  We have placed the account in a cease and desist status, so we will not follow up with *** ******* via phone or mail, per her request.   If she has questions, needs to have the ID Theft affidavit mailed to her again or would like to email or fax it to us, she may contact us and we will assist her with this.  

Also, *** ******* indicates she has an attorney.  If she has their information and provides it to us, we will direct any communications to her attorney, of course, and seek to bring this to a resolution. 

3/27/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have POA over my mother along with my brother. We feel that this needs to be handled by the BBB. ******* got a notice from Levy & Associates on Saturday December 29, 2012 which is a collection agency. And are handling account xxxxxxxxxxxx8398 for Fifth Third Bank in the amount of $14,824.86 which she doesn't know what it is for. ******* has dementia and get confused very easily. Tried to contact Levy & Associates, LLC. by phone and they were very rude. *** at Levy & Associates,LLC asked if ******* was here with me and before I could give any kind of answer she asked if I had POA. I said yes hold on ***, then hung up not getting anything resolved. ******* along with the dementia can't understand what anyone is saying to her so my brother and I handle everything for her.

Desired Settlement: ******* before this notice from Levy & Associates, LLC never got anything before this one on Dec.29,2012. This is the first notice that we know of. So what we would like to see happen is to write this notice off in the amount of $14,824.86. ******* is on very limited income and don't know what this bill is for. None of us have ever seen this kind of bill in this amount before this. Thank You 

Business Response:

This response is in reference to a Consumer Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau against Levy & Associates, LLC ("Levy") on January 2, 2013, by Complainants. Complainants filed said Complaint on behalf of their Mother ("Consumer"), upon whom Complainants have a Power of Attorney. Levy initially responded to the Consumer Complaint by stating that it is in the process of investigating the Complaint and could not substantiate the claims at that time. Levy also advised that in order to discuss this matter with a third party, Levy will need to have a copy of the Power of Attorney showing that the Complainants have authority to discuss such matters or otherwise act on behalf of Consumer. Levy further provided that it was more than happy to work with Complainants and Consumer to reach an amicable resolution of this matter.

Complainants rejected the response submitted to the Better Business Bureau by Levy, and provided a copy of the Power of Attorney to the Better Business Bureau, which has been forwarded to Levy. Subsequent to the receipt of Consumer’s Complaint, Levy has investigated this matter. Levy is a comprehensive collection law firm. As such, Levy serves as counsel for numerous creditors that are owed money; including, but not limited to, Fifth Third Bank, in the collection of unpaid accounts. Consumer’s account was placed with Levy by Fifth Third Bank on December 17, 2012 due Consumer’s default of an auto loan (Account No. XXXXX8398; account origination date: December 5, 2008), in the principal amount of $9,370.02 plus accrued interest. Said account continues to accrue interest at a rate of 13.50% per annum.

On or about December 17, 2012, Levy, as Counsel for Fifth Third Bank, forwarded Fifth Third Bank’s First Demand letter to Consumer. This letter advised Consumer to contact Levy, in writing, within thirty (30) days to dispute the claim. Levy did not receive any such request from Consumer, nor Complainants, seeking validation of said debt until it received the Consumer Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau on or about January 2, 2013.

In regards to Complainants’ desired settlement, Consumer’s account was previously charged off by Fifth Third Bank in the amount of $9,370.02 on or about September 18, 2009. Despite said debt being charged off, Fifth Third Bank may continue to pursue collection efforts in regards to Consumer’s account, and it has elected to do so. Further, Levy is NOT the owner of Consumer’s account; rather, it merely represents Firth Third Bank in the collection of Consumer’s account as its attorney. As to Consumer’s claim that he/ she was treated rudely by a Levy representative, Levy has no record of any Levy representative communicating with Consumer, Complainants, or any other individual in regards to the account at issue. Levy strongly maintains that it strives to treat all people with the highest levels of dignity and respect in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable manner. Levy is more than willing to work with Consumer and Complainants in order to reach a payment plan that is acceptable and viable for Consumer. Consumer and/ or Complainants (as Levy has received a copy of the Power of Attorney) may contact Levy to make such arrangements should he/ she desire to do so.

Consumer Response:

I am rejecting this response because ******* ******* is an elderly woman in failing health. Her income is non-collectible...which was discussed with 5/3 bank at the time the vehicle was turned in. The family is not obligated to pay her debts. All money she has coming in each month is used up to pay for her living expenses as well as her health care needs. It was our understanding, at the time the vehicle was turned in, that 5/3 bank was charging off the debt without attempting any further collection efforts. As a reminder to 5/3 bank, they did write a loan to an elderly woman with the obvious knowledge that her income would be non-collectible if she failed to pay her loan. As far as I'm concerned that is the bank's risk of loss and they need to accept their mistake and charge off the debt.































Business Response: Levy is more than willing to work with Consumer and Complainants in order to reach a payment plan that is acceptable and viable for Consumer. Consumer and/ or Complainants (as Levy has received a copy of the Power of Attorney) may contact Levy to make such arrangements should he/ she desire to do so.

Consumer Response:

I am going to simply put it in plain English to Levy & Associates that holds the account for the loan from 5/3 bank for ******* *******. The bank, 5/3 bank, wrote a loan to an elderly person...knowing that her income was non-collectible at the time the loan was taken out. She is in a nursing home and in failing health. She is an 85 year old woman. I, along with ********* family, do not have responsibility to her debt. Therefore, this is my final answer to this. I am rapidly growing annoyed with Levy & Associates & their pure IGNORANCE in regard to this dept. As far as I am concerned that is too bad! They can hold the debt and stare it all they want as far as I am concerned. ******* is non-collectible and the family is NOT responsible for this debt. There is NO other choice but for 5/3 to write off the debt...END OF DISCUSSION! I will not continue a debate about this any further! Any further contact from Levy & Associates can be placed in writing and will be dealt with accordingly. There will be NO payment arrangements made! I can understand if this is the end of the BBB's role in this dispute; however, my answer remains the same.

3/23/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: A credit card of mine was placed into collections for nonpayment due to personal reasons- a move, a previous lay-off, student loan debt, medical issues, etc. Levy and Associates purchased the debt and began calling me nonstop up to 25 times a day and left extremely threatening messages; they made it sound like this debt was life or death. Levy and Associates called the school that I teach at several times a day as well, EVEN after they were asked to STOP calling school; this was humiliating. It is IMPOSSIBLE for teachers to take phone calls while teaching. I eventually had to call them and tell them myself to quit calling my employer. Upon that conversation, I was threatened even more and told that if I did not settle this debt my wages would be garnished. So, I settled for $1,400 and made an immediate $300 payment over the phone- this was on February 7, 2012. I signed up to pay $100 a month (including the month that I paid the $300) on the 15th of every month for 10 months. It is now March of 2013 and Levy and Associates is still taking out $100 on the 15th of every month. I have emailed them and called them to discuss this matter. I have documented every phone call, printed out every statement, every letter, etc. I never heard a response from the emails. Supposedly the gentleman handling my case no longer works for the company. The other individuals I have spoken with have no clue what I am talking about and just argue that I still owe them money. When I ask to speak to the manager or a different individual, no one is available and no one ever calls me back. I have paid Levy and Associates $300 more than I owe them and after March 15th, it will be $400 more than I owe them. I do not have an extra $100 laying around every month AND I would have NEVER agreed to this settlement if I would have known that they would continue to withdraw money from my account EVEN AFTER I paid them all that was due.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of the $300 that I have over paid.

Business Response:

 

This response is in reference to a Consumer Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau against Levy & Associates, LLC ("Levy") on March 1, 2013, by Complainant. Complainant’s Complaint lists multiple allegations against Levy, including: (1) Levy & Associates purchased Complainant’s debt and began calling Complainant multiple times a day (up to 25 times per day), leaving threatening messages; (2) Complainant settled his/her debt for $1,400; (3) when Complainant telephoned Levy and requested to discuss this matter with a manager, no manger was available nor did they call Complainant back; and (4) Complainant has paid Levy & Associates $300 more than what was owed for this debt. Consumer’s desired settlement of this matter: "I would like a refund of the $300 that I have over paid."

Upon receipt of Complainant’s Complaint, Levy & Associates reviewed its system records and notes in regards to this matter. It is Levy & Associates desire to resolve the Complainant’s allegation to consumer’s satisfaction and to address the facts and merits of each allegation. Accordingly, in an attempt to clearly respond to each allegation in its entirety, Levy & Associates will respond to each separately and in the same order set forth in Complainant’s Complaint

Complainant’s first allegation is that Levy & Associates purchased Consumer’s debt and began calling Consumer multiple times per day, leaving threatening messages. Levy & Associates does not purchase debts nor does its owners or management purchase debts on their behalf. Levy & Associates is a collection law firm and as such, it serves as counsel for numerous creditors that are owed money including creditors that may from time to time purchase debt such as Consumer’s account.

Complainant also claims that Levy & Associates repeatedly called Complainant multiple times per day, leaving threatening messages, and refused to allow Complainant to discuss this matter with a manger. Levy & Associates has reviewed its phone and system records and it has no record of any such events transpiring. According to Levy & Associates records the Complainant’s account was placed with Levy & Associates for collection in January, 2012. After it was placed, the account was called a number of times but never more than one time per day and never were threatening messages left for the Complainant. Specifically, an employee of Levy & Associates first called Complainant on January 26, 2012, leaving a message for Complainant. Complainant returned the call to Levy & Associates that very same day and advised the account manager that he/ she would like to resolve the obligation. The Levy & Associates employee informed Complainant that a payment plan could be entered into; however, a down payment would be needed. On February 6, 2012, Levy & Associates called Complainant and left a message and Complainant returned the telephone call on February 7, 2012. During said telephone call, Complainant agreed to make a down payment and make monthly payments thereafter until the debt was paid in full. Levy & Associates then sent a letter to the Consumer spelling out the exact terms of the settlement and the Consumer’s signed the letter and returned it to Levy & Associates. Thereafter, levy & Associates received the agreed to down payment as well as the monthly payments.

Complainant’s second allegation is that he/ she settled this matter for $1,400 and has paid $300 more than that owed to Levy for this debt. According to Levy & Associates records this is not accurate. As stated above, Consumer’s statement is in direct contravention of the letter that Levy & Associates prepared and the Consumer signed in which she agreed to pay the balance in full. According to the letter, Complainant agreed to make one down payment of $300 and make monthly payments thereafter in the amount of $100 until account paid in full. No agreement was made nor does Levy & Associates’ records indicate that the parties agreed to settle this matter for $1,400. 00 as Complainant represents in his/ her complaint. Complainant must have been mistaken about settling the account for $1,400.00

Finally, according to Levy & Associates’ records Complainant has made payments on this debt in the amount of $1,500.00. As of March 11, 2013, Complainant’s remaining account balance is $211.51. For this reason, Complainant cannot be "refunded" $300, as he/ she has not overpaid this account and money is still owed to Levy & Associates’ client.

Levy would be happy to discuss this matter with Complainant further should he/ she desire to do so.

2/12/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I work at the ****'s In Willoughby. On 11/8/2012 I received an email from ****'s corporate stating that they had received an order to garnish my wages. I printed a copy of the email it says that the Payee is ********** Municipal Court. And the additional contact is ********* Acquisitions XVI,LLC c/o Atty **** *. Levy. I called ********* and asked to speak to Mr. Levy and was told by the woman I was speaking to that naturally I could not speak to him. I asked what this garnishment was about. I was told that there had been a judgement against me in 2004. She said that there was a loan application with my signature on it. I have only had 2 loans under my name 1 was for a car which I paid in full and the other was for a mobile home through ***** *****. I asked why I had not received any notification on this I was told that all notices had been sent to 5872 ***** Road in Madison. I have not lived there in 18 years. I went to the court house and was told that they had nothing to do with this they were just collecting for ********* that ********* had picked up an old debt that had gone dormant. I called ********* back talked to a different woman who told me that they had no paperwork on this. When I informed her about what the other woman had said she had no answer. I also asked why they figured out where I work but not where I live. 

Desired Settlement: I just wanted to know what this is from but can not get any answers. If this is from the mobile home that loan had been forgiven and I paid the taxes that I owed for a forgiven debt. I have already had 4 payments taken out of my check. I have tried to look up the original case number but it does not show up either Lake or Ashtabula Counties. I sent for my credit score from TransUnion and this 3,859.38 debt is not there. I called TransUnion and was told that it would definitely be on the report. I just want to find out what this is for.If this for the mobile home than it has already been taken care of. It is looking like I am being scammed I even tried to call ********* at the Chicago office that was listed but the 800 number will not go through. Any help that you could give me would be appreciated. If I owe this then I want to pay. If not I do not have almost 4,000 that I can just give away. Thank you

Business Response:    This response is in reference to a Consumer Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau by Complainant. The Complainant states that he/she is filing the Consumer Complaint because he/she wants to know what the debt is for. Levy & Associates has investigated the Consumer Complaint. The result of said investigation determined that the debt originated from a credit card account that the Complainant had with ********* Bank, Account number ending in ****, that a complaint was filed against the Complainant in the *********** Municipal Court on or about September 22, 2003, that the Complainant was served with the complaint by ordinary mail or November 12, 2003, that the Complainant did not file an answer to the complaint filed against him/her and that a judgment was entered against the Complainant on January 16, 2004. The judgment was revived by the court, after going dormant, on August 14, 2012. As a result of the judgment being obtained on January 16, 2004, and being revived on August 14, 2012, a garnishment was instituted to recover this judgment on or about October 25, 2012. In order to reach an amicable resolution, Levy & Associates is more than willing to work with Complainant on this matter. The Complainant may contact Levy to discuss the matter in question should he/she desire to do so.

12/1/2012 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: A ******* from Levy & Associates has been calling my house looking for someone who has the same last name as me. I have told them I do not know this person and cannot help them locate them. I have also told them I am on the do not call list and want to be placed on their internal do not call list, yet, I still receive these calls. I do not owe them, or anyone else for that matter any money and wish they would stop harassing me. I will make a formal complaint to the DNC if I receive another call.

Desired Settlement: Stop calling me!

Business Response:

This response is in reference to an Original Consumer Complaint (" Consumer Complaint") filed with the Better Business Bureau on or about October 16, 2012 (BBB Complaint ID #*******). Levy & Associates, LLC ("Levy") is responding late to this Consumer Complaint because it did not receive the Consumer Complaint until November 20, 2012. This Consumer Complaint alleges that Levy continues to call Consumer for collection purposes, despite Consumer not being the individual Levy is attempting to contact. Consumer further claims that she has notified Levy that she is not the individual Levy is attempting to contact, nor does she know said individual. Consumer’s desired outcome and resolution of this matter is for the telephone calls from Levy to Consumer to stop immediately.

Upon receipt of Consumer’s Complaint, Levy searched its system and records for the phone number of Consumer and confirmed it to be linked to an account that did not belong to Consumer. Levy immediately noted in the account that it was to no longer attempt to contact the actual party in question at the Consumer’s telephone number. Levy then removed Consumer’s telephone contact information from its system records and notes as to said account. Additionally, Consumer’s telephone number has been placed on Levy & Associates, LLC’s "Do Not Call" list.

Levy apologizes for the inconvenience; Levy wholly anticipates that removing Consumer’s phone number from its system and records will promptly resolve this matter.

7/17/2012 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: A mistaken identity due to a clerical error in a now bankrupt hospital database. Levy and Associates has harassed me over a $12, 043 debt which is not mine. A) My name was accidentally merged in the hospital database with a **** **********. My name is *** **********; B) Levy has conflicting information on the amount **** ********** owed/owes; C) I was an outpatient in 2000 NOT an inpatient in 2008; D) I am not old enough for Medicare as **** received; E) My name and NOT my social security number was mistakenly associated in the hospital database; F) Levy has not done any due diligence to clarify information with ***** ******** LLC, the debt holder; I spoke with **** about the mistaken identity on 05/02/12. Levy continues to call without researching these major discrepancies.

Desired Settlement: Place the debt in the name of **** ********** after simply verifying the Medicare payee social security number. The debt does NOT belong to *** **********.

Business Response: This response is in reference to an Original Consumer Complaint (''Consumer Complaint'') filed with the Better Business Bureau on May 10, 2012. This Consumer Complaint claims that Levy & Associates, LLC (''Levy'') has ''harassed me over a $12,043 debt which is not mine.'' Consumer's desired resolution is for the debt to be placed in the name of the actual party in question (who Consumer identifies by name) by verifying the Medicare payee's social security number.
Levy is a comprehensive collection law firm/ collection agency. As such, a medical account, which Consumer personally guaranteed, has been placed with Levy for collection purposes. Upon receipt of Consumer's Complaint, Levy reviewed its system records and notes in regards to this matter. Although the individual Consumer identifies as the actual owner of this debt is linked to Consumer's account, in fact said individual was the patient, Consumer personally guaranteed patient's medical account. Thus, Consumer is liable for this debt even though he was not the actual patient upon which the medical account at issue was created, as he guaranteed said debt.
Accordingly, Levy is aware that Consumer was not the patient who received the medical treatment/ care which resulted in the amount currently due and owed on this account. However, as Consumer personally guaranteed said debt, Levy cannot place the debt solely in the name of the patient. At this time, no amounts have been paid to reduce the balance on this medical account. As always, Levy is willing to work with Consumer in order to reach a payment plan that is acceptable and livable for Consumer. Should Consumer desire to do so, he or she should contact Levy to make such arrangements.

Consumer Response: Levy and Associates reply was very deficient and extremely vague. It also contains errors in sentence structure: "Although the individual Consumer identifies as the actual owner of this debt is linked to Consumer's account, in fact said individual was the patient, Consumer personally guaranteed patient's medical account."

I was not the guarantor on the account for **** **********.

Levy is relying on an erroneous ******* **** Hospital database entry which mistakenly assigned *** ********** as the co*signer for **** **********.

The UCC requires contracts to be signed. A computer screen and case notes are not legally binding signatures. There is no signed origination documentation identifying me: *** ********** as the guarantor for **** **********.

I am not related to, nor do I know a **** **********. I did not act as a guarantor for the debt of **** **********.

I will also file an identity theft complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against ****** *** Financial, ***** ********, and ******* **** Hospital.

Levy should find **** ********** to properly assign the debt to **** **********.

Business Response:

This response is in reference to Consumer’s Rebuttal filed with the Better Business Bureau regarding Levy & Associates, LLC ("Levy") on June 11, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case #********). Consumer filed an original Consumer Complaint on May 10, 2012. Levy filed its response to Consumer’s Complaint on May 31, 2012. Thereafter, on June 11, 2012, Consumer indicated that he/ she did not accept Levy’s response and that he/ she "was not the guarantor on the account."

As stated in Levy’s response to Consumer’s Complaint, Levy is a comprehensive collection law firm/ collection agency. As such, medical accounts are placed with Levy for collection purposes, including an account which Consumer personally guaranteed. Consumer claims that this debt does not belong to him/her, and that the debt should be placed in the name of correct individual/debtor. Consumer identifies said person by name ("Patient"); however, Consumer and the Patient are not being identified in this response due to confidentiality purposes.

As stated in Levy’s initial response to Consumer’s BBB Complaint, upon receipt of Consumer’s Complaint Levy reviewed its system records and notes and contacted its client in regards to this matter. The Patient identified by Consumer as the sole responsible party of the medical account/debt is the Patient. However, what Consumer fails to mention is that the Consumer personally guaranteed the Patient’s medical account. Contact information was listed separately for both the patient and Consumer guarantor in the medical records. Accordingly, Consumer is liable for this debt even though he/she was not the actual patient upon which the medical account at issue was created because he/she guaranteed said debt.

Again as stated in Levy’s initial response to Consumer’s Complaint, Levy is aware that Consumer was not the patient who actually received the medical treatment/ care which resulted in the amount currently due and owed on this account. However, as Consumer personally guaranteed said debt, Levy cannot place the debt solely in the name of the patient.

Consumer Response:

This is my second response to the Levy Complaint #*******:
 
I did not personally guarantee any debt for **** **********.  This was a clerical error as I have stated all along.  Levy and ***** ******** are making the presumption that "listing a name in a medical record" is a personal guarantee.
 
Levy still has not addressed ANY of the facts I presented.  
 
NAMES IN A MEDICAL RECORD DO NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACTUAL RATIFICATION!
 
"Proof" is not a medical record screen showing similar last names.
 
I did not "personally guarantee" this or any other debt for **** **********.  
 
There is no "proof" of my personal guarantee on medical treatments for ANYONE. I did not personally guarantee anything for **** **********.  
 
***** ******** is falsely assigning debts for collection and Levy is attempting to fraudulently collect a debt.
 
*** **** **********  
________________________________________
 

Business Response:

This response is in reference to Consumer’s Rebuttal filed with the Better Business Bureau regarding Levy & Associates, LLC ("Levy") on June 27, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case #*******). Consumer filed an original Consumer Complaint on May 10, 2012. Levy filed its response to Consumer’s Complaint on May 31, 2012. Thereafter, Consumer indicated that he/ she did not accept Levy’s response and that he/ she "was not the guarantor on the account."

As stated in Levy’s response to Consumer’s Complaint, Levy is a comprehensive collection law firm/ collection agency. As such, medical accounts are placed with Levy for collection purposes, including an account which Consumer personally guaranteed (according to the notes and records of Levy’s client). Consumer claims that this debt does not belong to him/her, and that the debt should be placed in the name of correct individual/debtor ("Patient").

The information provided to Levy from its client indicates that Consumer is the responsible party of the medical account/ debt, as Consumer guaranteed Patient’s medical account. However, due to the fact that this medical account has been disputed by Consumer and for the reasons set forth in Consumer’s Complaint/ Rebuttal, Levy is closing Consumer’s file at the present time.

6/26/2012 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Levy & Associates has filed a lawsuit against me to collect a debt without providing me proof of that debt as requested by me and required by law. On 4/10/12 I sent a certified letter to Levy & Associates requesting proof of debt that they were trying to collect on. On 4/13 they received my request. On 4/21 I received a phone call from them and was left a voice message. I called them back on 4/21 to advise them that I had sent them a cease and desist letter as well as proof of debt request and asked them to email me or call me in the evening if they had questions. They acknowledged receiving the letter and agreed to follow up with my request asap. On May 16th Levy & Associates filed a lawsuit against me in ******** County Municipal Court for collection of debt without providing me proof of the debt that was requested and required by law. I was not notified of this lawsuit by Levy but by attorneys soliciting my business to defend myself against the lawsuit. On 5/21 I contacted Levy and spoke to ***** ******** who handles my account. I asked her about the lawsuit and I told her that it has been over 30 days and I still had not received proof of debt that I requested from her office. She advised me that the proof of debt was attached to the correspondence I would receive from the court, at this time I have not received proof of this debt from Levy & Associates even though it has been well over 30 days since they have received my request. On 5/24 I spoke with Ms. ******** and advised her I still had not received any proof of the debt and I was suspicious that her firm was attempting a backdoor default without following the law that regulates collection practices. The conversation became a shouting match and nothing was resolved. I have since filed a complaint with the FTC against Levy & Associates for its failure to follow the practices of FDCPA Section 809. Validation of debts 15 USC 1692g.

Desired Settlement: I want Levy & Associates to provide proof of this debt as requested by me and required by law and if they cant do this to drop this frivlous lawsuit.

Business Response: This response is in reference to an Original Consumer Complaint ('' Consumer Complaint'') filed with the Better Business Bureau on May 24, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case#********). This Consumer Complaint claims that Levy & Associates, LLC (''Levy'') has failed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (''FDCPA''), particularly Section 809 regarding Validation of debts (15 USC 1692(g)). Consumer's desired resolution is for Levy to validate said debt or dismiss the lawsuit filed by Levy's client/ Plaintiff.
Levy is a comprehensive creditors' rights law firm. As such, Levy serves as counsel for numerous creditors that are owed money; including but not limited to, Plaintiff. On March 21, 2012, Plaintiff placed Consumer's account with Levy for collection. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Consumer pursuant to the FDCPA. This letter advised Consumer to contact Plaintiff, in writing, within thirty (30) days to dispute the claim. Plaintiff's Counsel/ Plaintiff did receive a letter from Consumer on or about April 11, 2012, requesting validation of Consumer's debt. Levy immediately responded with a debt verification letter.
On or about April 25, 2012, Consumer called Levy and spoke with an employee. Consumer informed employee that he/ she had mailed in a dispute letter which requested validation. Levy's employee reiterated that additional documents have been requested and would be forwarded to Consumer upon receipt. On or about May 10, 2012, Levy prepared a second debt verification letter. Attached to said debt verification was an affidavit in support of claim validating Consumer's debt. This affidavit stated that Consumer had requested a credit card from the original creditor (named therein) and the origination date of said card; the charge off date and account balance on said charge off date; that Consumer's account has been sold and assigned to Plaintiff; amount of last payment and date said payment paid; and the balance currently due and owing on Consumer's account. Therefore, Levy prepared a Civil Complaint to be filed in the ******** County, Ohio Municipal Court. On June 7, 2012, a copy of the charge off statement from the original creditor was also provided to Consumer.
As validation of Defendant's debt has been provided, Consumer is incorrect that Levy has failed to validate the debt as required by the FDCPA.

6/19/2012 Problems with Product/Service
4/30/2012 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Consumer States: "I am writing to file a formal complaint against Levy & Associates, a collection agency located at ********************, Columbus, OH 43220. Yale Levy and his associates, ************** and ***** Alice Eliz******, have engaged in egregious violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("The Act") which have caused me great harm. I ask that your office take immediate action against Levy & Associates to halt their illicit collection practices. Please note that 12 distinct lawsuits have been filed in the Sixth Circuit Court against Levy & Associates in the last 6 months alone for egregious violations of The Act. Their illicit and predatory actions must be stopped immediately. On March 2,2012, Yale Levy and ************** issued by regular mail an ad hoc demand for information, which they titled "Civil Case Subpoena," to ************* of Cincinnati, Ohio in Hamilton County. The so-called "subpoena" claimed to originate from the Hamilton County Municipal Court, yet the "subpoena" contained no official seal nor a signature from the clerk of courts. It was signed only by Yale Levy. Hamilton County Municipal Court later confirmed the "subpoena" had not been issued by the court. In the "subpoena," Mr. Levy cites a case number for a default judgment from 2007 in which ******************** is named as plaintiff and I am named as defendant. Mr. Levy further commands Ms. ******* to produce a copy of my rental application, name of my current employer, my current telephone number, and my last six months of payments made to her. Mr. Levy stipulates that, if Ms. ******* is unable to produce the documents by March 30, she will be compelled to appear at Mr. Levy's office in Columbus. It should be noted that Mr. Levy's office is in Franklin County, while Ms. ******* lives in Hamilton County and the cited judgment was rendered in Hamilton County. Ms. ******* telephoned Mr. Levy's associate, ***** ******, on March 10 to inquire about the "subpoena." In that telephone conversation, Mr. ****** identified himself as a debt collector, made specific references to a debt that he claimed was mine, commanded that Ms. ******* provide the above-referenced documents or be forced to appear in his Franklin County office, and demanded that she reveal additional private and confidential information about me and my family. Without limiting the scope of any violation which may have been committed, the conduct of Mr. Levy and his associates described herein above constitutes the following abusive, deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: The document mailed by Mr. Levy falsely labeled as a "Civil Case Subpoena" from the Hamilton Count Municipal Court violates #806 of The Ad as it clearly constitutes a false representation of a document issued by a court and also constitutes deceptive means. The threats made by Mr. Levy, Ms. ***** and Mr. ****** to coerce Ms. ******* to appear in their Franklin County office - outside her county of residence and outside the county where the judgment was rendered - violate #807 of The Act as it is an action that cannot legally be taken. Mr. ******'s disclosure of my purported debt and his identification of himself as a debt collector when he spoke to Ms. ******* on the telephone violates #804 and #805 of The Act. Please consider these cruel, malicious and illicit actions taken by Levy & Associates in the context of my current vulnerable condition. I am a widow and a senior citizen who survives well below the poverty level on approximately $900/month from social security . I own no assets, no savings and earn no additional income. Furthermore, the ********* judgment being pursued by Levy & Associates was made without my knowledge, without any official notification by the courts, and without any opportunity to defend myself against baseless claims. Levy & Associates has made no attempt to contact me directly about this matter, and instead has chosen to illegally solicit private and confidential information about me from a third party. The fact that the third party is my landlord means that Levy & Associates has willfully, recklessly and illicitIy jeopardized my modest living arrangements. In light of the many abuses of law committed by Levy & Associates against me and many others, I ask that you take immediate action against Levy & Associates to halt their illicit collection practises." Consumer sites Fair Debt Collection Practices Act sections in her complaint.

Desired Settlement: In light of the many abuses of law committed by Levy & Associates against me and many others, I ask that you take immediate action against Levy & Associates to halt their illicit collection practises."

Business Response: This response is in reference to an Original Consumer Complaint ('' Consumer Complaint'') filed with the Better Business Bureau on March 20, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case #********). Consumer claims that Levy & Associates, LLC (''Levy'') has engaged in ''egregious violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act'' (''FDCPA''). Consumer's desired resolution is for the Better Business Bureau ''take immediate action against Levy to halt their illicit collection practices.'' Levy is a comprehensive collection law firm. As such, Levy served as counsel for Plaintiff in a civil case in which Consumer is the Defendant. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in the Hamilton County Municipal Court (Case No. *********) against Defendant on November 13, 2006. Plaintiff was granted judgment against Consumer on March 15, 2007, in the amount of $11,065.83, plus interest and court costs. Since the date judgment was granted on March 15, 2007, Defendant has not paid any money to Plaintiff to satisfy said judgment. In an attempt to locate asset information, Levy, on behalf of its client, mailed a subpoena duces tecum on or about March 14, 2012. The purpose of the subpoena duces tecum was to compel Consumer's landlord, as permitted by law, to produce certain documents, including a copy of Consumer's rental application, name of current employer (if known), current telephone number and last six months of payments made by Consumer. Consumer claims that in doing so Levy falsely represented the document as issued by the Hamilton County Municipal Court and constituted ''deceptive means''. Levy does not claim the subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Hamilton County Municipal Court. The subpoena clearly provides that Attorney Yale Levy is the Attorney for Plaintiff, not a representative of the Hamilton County Municipal Court. Consumer further complains that Levy cannot legally require her landlord to appear in its office, outside his or her county of residence and outside the county in which judgment was rendered. This is untrue. However, Levy would like to point out that the letter sent to Consumer's landlord provided that he or she would not be required to appear at Levy's office if said documentation was submitted prior to March 30, 2012. Additionally, Consumer claims that Levy's disclosure of the Consumer's debt and identification of itself as a debt collector when speaking to Consumer's landlord violates Section 804 and 805 the FDCPA. Levy never disclosed Consumer's debt or identification of itself as a debt collector when speaking to Consumer's landlord. All Levy did was serve said landlord with a subpoena to produce certain documents. Additionally, Consumer's claim that Levy ''engaged in egregious violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which have caused me great harm'' are completely unfounded. Levy has not violated the FDCPA. Further, Consumer alleged that judgment was made without Consumer's knowledge, without official court notification, and that he or she was denied of the opportunity to defend the claim. As stated above, Levy subpoenaed Consumer's landlord legally and pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 45. As to Consumer's claim that judgment was rendered without his/ her knowledge and therefore provided Consumer with no opportunity to defend said claim- this assertion is incorrect. Summons and Complaint were sent to Consumer via ordinary U.S. Mail on or about February 5, 2007. Defendant chose to not defend said Complaint, and accordingly judgment was granted by the Hamilton County Municipal Court on March 15, 2007. Finally, Consumer set forth that she is ''a widow and a senior citizen who survives well below the poverty level on approximately $900/month from social security. I own no assets, no savings and earn no additional income.'' While Levy understands Consumer's difficult financial situation at this time, its client was granted judgment against Consumer on March 15, 2007, in the amount of $11,065.83, plus interest and court costs, none of which has been paid to Levy's client at this time. In trying to ascertain the nature and extent of the Consumer's assets in order to satisfy Plaintiff's judgment, Levy in no way intends to imply that it is not sensitive to the financial situation of Consumer. Levy wishes to stress to the Better Business Bureau and Consumer that it would not collect from any sources of income or other assets that it is aware is exempt from execution. Levy strives to treat all people with the highest levels of dignity and respect in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable manner. Levy is more than willing to work with Consumer in order to reach a payment plan that is acceptable and livable for Consumer and to reach an amicable resolution of this matter.

Consumer Response: (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) In his response, Mr. Levy states: "The subpoena clearly provides that Attorney Yale Levy is the Attorney for Plaintiff, not a representative of the Hamilton County Municipal Court." This is an absolute lie. The "subpoena" uses the letterhead of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, which is a clear misrepresentation of the source of the "subpoena" and is thus a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Further in his response, Mr. Levy admits that he threatened to force the recipient of the "subpoena" to appear in his office unless "said documentation was submitted prior to March 30, 2012." Mr. Levy states that my assertion of this threat being illegal "is untrue." On the contrary, Mr. Levy's threat is absolutely illegal, as Mr. Levy is presently facing several lawsuits in the federal courts for making the same threat to others. Mr. Levy knows quite well that, if he wishes to subpoena a witness regarding this matter, he must do so legally through the Hamilton County courts, and cannot require or threaten anyone to appear in his office outside their county of residence and outside the county of the judgment. Mr. Levy also states, "Levy never disclosed Consumer's debt or identification of itself as a debt collector when speaking to Consumer's landlord." This is a patently deceptive statement. No one ever claimed Mr. Levy himself disclosed such information. Rather, Mr. Levy's associate, ************, was named as the person who clearly and illegally disclosed the stated private information to the recipient of the "subpoena" on the telephone, in violation of The Act. In response to the illicit judgment, Mr. Levy states that "Summons and Complaint were sent to Consumer via ordinary U.S. Mail on or about February 5, 2007." By Mr. Levy's own admission, neither the summons nor the complaint were sent via an agent of the court nor by certified mail, and I therefore never received them. The fact that I never received the alleged summons and complaint means that I could not legally defend myself in court, rendering the judgment illegal. Mr. Levy also states that, " Levy strives to treat all people with the highest levels of dignity and respect in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable manner." Surely Mr. Levy understands that repeatedly violating the law in attempting to collect a debt completely undermines his own stated values. The fact that Mr. Levy is facing over a dozen federal lawsuits against him in just the last few months for egregious violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should serve as his badly needed wake-up call. Mr. Levy is once again warned never to contact me or anyone else ever again regarding this matter. Thanks to the Better Business Bureau for holding Levy & Associates accountable.

Business Response: This response is in reference to Consumer's Rebuttal filed with the Better Business Bureau on April 7, 2012. Consumer filed an Original Consumer Complaint (''Consumer Complaint'') with the Better Business Bureau on March 20, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case #********) against Levy & Associates, LLC (''Levy''). Plaintiff filed its Rebuttal to Consumer's Consumer Complaint on March 29, 2012. Thereafter, Consumer indicated that he or she did not accept the Levy's response to his or her Consumer Complaint. Although the Better Business Bureau has sent a special request to Consumer regarding the Consumer Complaint and it is not necessary for Levy to respond at this time, Levy would like to reiterate its position and further negate the assertions made by Consumer in Consumer's Rebuttal. In Consumer's Rebuttal, Consumer argues that the subpoena at issue does not provide that Attorney Yale Levy is the Attorney for Plaintiff (rather than a representative of the Hamilton County Municipal Court). Consumer claims that Levy falsely represented the document as issued by the Hamilton County Municipal Court. As stated in Levy's response to Consumer's original complaint, Levy served as counsel for Plaintiff in a civil case in which Consumer is the Defendant. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in the Hamilton County Municipal Court (Case No. ::*********) against Defendant on November 13, 2006. Judgment was granted against Consumer on March 15, 2007 in the amount of $11,065.83, plus interest and court costs. This case information may be obtained on the Hamilton County, Ohio Clerk of Courts website. Subsequent to judgment being granted on March 15, 2007, Consumer has not paid any money to Plaintiff to satisfy said judgment. Therefore, in an attempt to locate asset information, Levy, on behalf of its client, mailed a subpoena duces tecum on or about March 14, 2012, The purpose of the subpoena duces tecum was to compel Consumer's landlord, as permitted by law, to produce certain documents. Levy does not claim the subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Hamilton County Municipal Court. Rather, Attorney Yale Levy signed the civil subpoena as the Attorney for Plaintiff and this is indicated on the subpoena. Attorney Yale Levy did not sign as a representative of the Hamilton County Municipal Court. Consumer's Rebuttal further complains that Levy cannot legally require her landlord to appear in its office if requested documentation listed above was not submitted prior to March 30, 2012. The Civil Subpoena issued to Consumer's landlord was made pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 45. As such, Consumer's landlord may legally be required to appear to provide the documents listed above. However, Consumer's landlord would not be required to do so if said documentation was submitted prior to March 30, 2012. Consumer also claims that an employee at Levy disclosed private information to Consumer's landlord over the telephone. Levy was referring to all of its employees, not solely Attorney Yale Levy, when it provided in its response to Consumer's Original Complaint that ''Levy never disclosed Consumer's debt or identification of itself as a debt collector when speaking to Consumer's landlord''. No employee disclosed Consumer's debt or identification of Levy as a debt collector when speaking to Consumer's landlord. All Levy did was serve said landlord with a subpoena to produce certain documents. Finally, as to Consumer's assertion that judgment was rendered without his/her knowledge and therefore provided Consumer with no opportunity to defend said claim- this is incorrect. As previously stated, Summons and Complaint were sent to the Consumer via ordinary U.S. Mail on or about February 5, 2007. Defendant chose to not defend said Complaint, and accordingly judgment was granted by the Hamilton County Municipal Court on March 15, 2007. This information is also available at the Hamilton County, Ohio Clerk of Courts website. Judgment was granted against Consumer/ Defendant and for Plaintiff/ Levy's client on March 15, 2007, in the amount of $11,065.83, plus interest and court costs, none of which has been paid to Levy's client at this time. In trying to ascertain the nature and extent of Consumer's assets in order to satisfy Plaintiff's judgment (mailing civil subpoena), Levy in no way intended to imply that it was not sensitive to the Consumer's financial situation. To reiterate, Levy wishes to stress to the Better Business Bureau and Consumer that it would not collect from any sources of income or other assets that it is aware is exempt from execution. Levy strives to treat all people with the highest levels of dignity and respect in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable manner. Levy is more than willing to work with Consumer in order to reach a payment plan that is acceptable and livable for Consumer and hopes to reach an amicable resolution of this matter.

3/14/2012 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: They keep calling my cell phone automatically... they are a collection agency. They have the wrong number, I'm not the person they are looking for. They call my about 1x/week. They say in the message to remove your number from calling you have to call them back. I've tried calling them back 100 times! you ALWAYS get a busy signal, they are NEVER there, and NEVER answer the phone, so there's NO WAY to get them to stop calling the wrong number.

Desired Settlement: If they don't stop calling immediately, by 3/1/2012, I want them to pay me $100 for every ******** time they've called me!

Business Response: This response is in reference to an Original Consumer Complaint ('' Consumer Complaint'') filed with the Better Business Bureau on February 29, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case # BBB Case #XXXXXXXX). This Consumer Complaint claims that Levy & Associates, LLC (''******'') continues to automatically call Consumer for collection purposes, despite Consumer not being the individual Levy is attempting to contact. Consumer's desired outcome and resolution of this matter is for the telephone calls from Levy to Consumer to stop immediately. Any request that has been made by Consumer or attempted to be made by Consumer to ****** in order to remove his or her phone number from Levy's records was not received. Levy has no record of any such request. Levy has 24+ telephone lines with which a Consumer may use to contact it for such purposes. Although it is unlikely that every telephone line would be in use at a given time, it is possible. Upon receipt of Consumer's Complaint, Levy searched its system and records for the phone number of Consumer and found it to be linked to an account entirely unrelated to Consumer. Levy immediately noted in that account that Consumer's phone number information was incorrectly placed therein and that Levy was to no longer contact the actual party in question via that telephone number. Additionally, Levy has removed Consumer's telephone contact information from its system records and notes. Levy apologizes for the inconvenience; however, Levy received no notice from Consumer that it was contacting an incorrect telephone number. As such, Levy had no reason to cease communication with said telephone number until receipt of Consumer's Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau on February 29, 2012. Regardless, Levy wholly anticipates that removing Consumer's phone number from its system and records will promptly resolve this matter.

Consumer Response: (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I called their phone number MANY times on MANY days, and EVERY SINGLE TIME got a busy signal. The reality of the situation, despite what the company says in their response, is they provide NO WAY THAT ACTUALLY WORKS to remove your name from their automatated filing system. Thanks to the BBB, they seem to have stopped calling (at least for the last few days).

2/28/2012 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Garnishment of wages. It is very apparent that Levy & associates buys up defaulted accounts to make money on.They are VERY sneaky about the ways they do business. I was never notified by them before the garnishment. While I was working they were taking over $100.per week out of my paychecks. Thanks to ****** & Associates I no longer have a job. I am 63 years old & I think it is appauling how this company goes about their business. I now received in the mail that the bought another account trying to fleece me out of more money that I do not have. I'm sure that they are doing this to other people including seniors like me.

Desired Settlement: Stop the harassment. I would have tried to settle with them had they asked. I was let go from my employment because of them. (01/14/2012). I should talk to a lawyer about suing them for their underhanded practices. I'm sure all of the complaints you have at the BBB are about the same as mine.

Business Response: This response is in reference to an Original Consumer Complaint ('' Consumer Complaint'') filed with the Better Business Bureau on January 27, 2012 (BBB Complaint Case #XXXXXXXX(Ref#REDACT32 2012 31 2012 33REDACT)). This Consumer Complaint claimed that Levy & Associates, LLC (''******'') buys defaulted accounts to make money on and is ''VERY sneaky about the ways they do business.'' Consumer also provided that he/she was not notified by Levy prior to it garnishing Consumer's wage, which garnished over $100.00 per week from Consumer's paychecks while he/she was working. Consumer stated in such Complaint that he/ she is 63 years old and no longer has a job due to ******, and that he/she believes Levy's business practices are ''appauling''. Consumer further stated that he/she ''received in the mail that they bought another account trying to fleece me out of more money that I do not have. I'm sure that they are doing this to other seniors like me.'' Levy is a comprehensive creditors' rights law firm. As such, Levy serves as counsel for numerous creditors that are owed money; including but not limited to, Plaintiff. On June 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the ******** County Municipal Court, Case # 10CVXXXXX for money owed to Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiff was granted judgment by the Court against Consumer on August 13, 2010, in the amount of $9,730.69, plus interest and costs. After numerous attempts to obtain voluntary payment from Consumer, Levy, on behalf of its client, located Consumer's place of employment and as permitted by law, commenced a wage garnishment by filing a Motion for Wage Garnishment with the Municipal Court. The purpose of such garnishment was to satisfy the judgment granted to Plaintiff and against Consumer. Upon filing of Plaintiff's Garnishment, the Court issued a Court Order and Notice of Garnishment on January 5, 2012. Consumer was served the Order by regular mail. Upon receipt, Consumer had the opportunity to dispute the Plaintiff's right to garnish Consumer's personal earnings by requesting a hearing following receipt of notice. Employer's Answer to the Court Order and Notice of Garnishment filed on January 17, 2012, provided that Consumer was employed at Garnishee, and Garnishee received notice of the garnishment on January 10, 2012. Subsequently, on January 30, 2012, Garnishee filed a Final Report and Answer of Garnishee, which provided that Consumer's employment with Garnishee was terminated as of January 14, 2012. As the garnishment of Garnishee under the present case failed because Consumer is no longer employed by Garnishee, no money will be garnished by Plaintiff from Defendant in the present case. Wage garnishments are expressly permitted by the Ohio Revised Code. Furthermore, the Ohio Revised Code prohibits an employer from terminating an employee due to a wage garnishment being filed. Plaintiff therefore was acting in accordance with its rights when it pursued wage garnishment in order to satisfy the amount owed to Plaintiff from Consumer. Garnishment in the present case failed and none of Consumer's wages were garnished, which makes much of Consumer's Complaint moot. Consumer makes other allegations in his/her Consumer Complaint that Levy wishes to address at this time. First, Consumer claims in his/ her Consumer Complaint that Levy buys defaulted accounts to make money and is ''VERY sneaky'' in its business practices. As stated above, Levy is a comprehensive creditors' rights law firm and serves as counsel for numerous creditors that are owed money. Levy is not in the business of buying defaulted accounts and Levy does not own the Consumer's debt. In response to Consumer's claim that Levy is ''VERY sneaky'', a claim in which Consumer failed to support with corroborating evidence, and Levy has no record of any such events occurring that would have led Consumer to believe Levy engaged in such practices, Levy can only stress that it strives to treat people with the highest levels of dignity and respect in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable matter. Consumer also provides that he/she was not notified by Levy prior to it garnishing Consumer's wages, and that Levy was garnishing over $100.00 per week from Consumer's paycheck while he/she was working. As stated above, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Wage Garnishment with the Municipal Court, and upon filing, the Court issued a Court Order and Notice of Garnishment, which was served to Consumer by regular mail. Consumer did receive notice by Levy that it was going to garnish Consumer's wages. However, Consumer's wages were not garnished pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion for Wage Garnishment. No wages of Consumer's were garnished in regards to the lawsuit between Plaintiff and Consumer/Defendant. In response to Consumer's claim that Levy was garnishing over $100.00 per week from Consumer's paycheck while he/she was still working, Levy reiterates that Consumer's wages were not garnished pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion for Wage Garnishment. However, Garnishee Employer's Answer to the Court Order and Notice of Garnishment filed on January 17, 2012 provided that prior to the date it received the garnishment order of personal earnings filed by Plaintiff, it received and was processing an unrelated garnishment order in the ******** County Court, Case No. 09 CV XXXXX, which it received on October 20, 2011 and the current balance due was $5,604.32. Upon searching the ******** County Municipal Court Clerk website with that case number (09 CV XXXXX), an unrelated case against Consumer as Defendant results from said search, in which garnishment was also pursued against Consumer. ****** was not counsel for Plaintiff in that case. Thus, Consumer was mistaken when it stated that ****** was garnishing over $100.00 per week from his/her paycheck when he/she was still working. An unrelated law firm was garnishing Consumer's wages pursuant to an entirely unrelated Court judgment, with separate plaintiffs, of which Levy had no part. Once again, Levy did not garnish Consumer's wages pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion for Garnishment. Consumer further stated in his/her Consumer Complaint that he/ she is 63 years old and no longer has a job due to ******, and that he/she believes Levy's business practices are ''appauling''. Levy has no idea how Consumer no longer has a job due to ******. Plaintiff does serve as counsel for Plaintiff in a civil suit in which Plaintiff was granted judgment against Defendant in the amount of $9,730.69, plus interest and costs. Levy did pursue wage garnishment to satisfy such judgment. However, no wages were garnished as a result of Plaintiff's Motion for Garnishment, and as Consumer is no longer employed by Garnishee, Consumer's wages will not be garnished as a result of the garnishment pursued by Levy's client. As stated above, Consumer's wages were previously being garnished by a separate Plaintiff, in a entirely unrelated lawsuit. Levy was not a party to such lawsuit. In response to Consumer's belief that Levy's business practices are ''appauling'' and as stated above, because Consumer corroborates such assertion with no details surrounding any events that transpired between Consumer and Levy which indicate Levy's business practices are appauling, and Levy has no record of any such events occurring that would have led Consumer to believe Levy engaged in such practices, Levy can only stress that it strives to treat people with the highest levels of dignity and respect in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable matter. Finally, Consumer stated in his/her Consumer Complaint that he/she ''received in the mail that they bought another account trying to fleece me out of more money that I do not have. I'm sure that they are doing this to other seniors like me.'' As stated above, Levy serves as counsel for numerous creditors and represents such creditors in the collection of money owed to them; Levy is not in the business of buying defaulted accounts. Consumer's assertion that Levy is in the business of buying defaulted accounts is completely false. Levy further maintains that it strives to treat all people with the highest levels of dignity and respect, including seniors, in the collection of debts owed to its clients and to resolve all matters in a fair and amicable matter. Plaintiff, Levy's client, was granted judgment by the Court against Consumer on August 13, 2012, in the amount of $9,730.69, plus interest and costs. At this time, no amounts have been paid by Consumer on such debt. Should Consumer desire, Levy would be more than happy to work with Consumer and come up with a payment plan acceptable to Consumer.

Consumer Response: (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I was never contacted by Levy by mail or any other means. I was laid off for over 21 months just like alot of other people have been laid off for long periods of time. If Levy wanted to work something out with me while I was working then they needed to contact me. I cannot afford $100.+ per week even when I am working. I have other bills that I am trying to catch up with. I guess there's always bankruptcy but I wanted to try to do the right thing. If this keeps up then I have no choice but to file for bankruptcy. All I can say is that I am trying to find a job and pay the money that I owe. But not at $100.+ per week that I think is outragous. $100. per week will mean that I will default on other bills I am paying. If Levy wants to try to work something out I am willing to listen. Currently I am jobless.

Business Response: This response is in reference the Consumer Rebuttal (BBB Complaint Case # XXXXXXXX(Ref#XX-XXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXX-XX-XXXX) filed by Consumer with the Better Business Bureau on February 6, 2012, in which said Consumer indicated he or she did not accept the response of Levy & Associates, LLC (''******''). Consumer originally filed a Complaint (''Original Consumer Complaint'') with the Better Business Bureau on January 17, 2012, which was timely and fully responded to by Levy on February 6, 2012. Consumer's Rebuttal indicated that he or she did not accept the response of ******. Consumer's response provided: ''I was never contacted by Levy by mail or any other means. I was laid off for over 21 months just like a lot of other people have been laid off for long periods of time. If Levy wanted to work something out with me while I was working then they needed to contact me. I cannot afford $100.+ per week even when I am working. I have other bills that I am trying to catch up with. I guess there's always bankruptcy but I wanted to try to do the right thing. If this keeps up then I have no choice but to file for bankruptcy. All I can say is that I am trying to find a job and pay the money that I owe. But not at $100.+ per week that I think it outrageous. $100. per week will mean that I will default on other bills that I am paying. If ****** wants to try to work something out I am willing to listen. Currently I am jobless.'' Consumer's statement that he or she was never contacted by Levy by the ''mails or other means'' is incorrect. As previously provided in ******'s response to Consumer's Original Complaint, Levy is a comprehensive creditors' rights law firm. As such, Levy serves as counsel for numerous creditors that are owed money; including but not limited to Plaintiff. On June 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the ****** County Municipal Court, Case # 10CVXXXXX for money owed to Plaintiff from Defendant. Plaintiff was granted judgment by the Court against Consumer on August 13, 2010, in the amount of $9,730.69, plus interest and costs. Levy attempted to obtain voluntary payment from Consumer numerous times by telephone and regular U.S. mail. After many unsuccessful attempts, Levy, on behalf of its client, located Consumer's place of employment and as permitted by law, commenced a wage garnishment by filing a Motion for Wage Garnishment with the Municipal Court. Wage garnishments are expressly permitted by the Ohio Revised Code. As provided in Levy's response to Consumer's original Complaint, the garnishment of Consumer's wages failed as Consumer is no longer employed at said place of employment. Consumer's Original Complaint provided that Levy was garnishing over $100.00 per week from Consumer's paycheck while he or she was working. This is simply untrue. No wages of Consumer's were garnished in regards to the lawsuit between Plaintiff and Consumer/Defendant. However, and as noted in our previous response to Consumer's Original Complaint, Consumer's wages were garnished pursuant to an unrelated case in the ****** County Municipal Court, Case No. 09 CV XXXXX in which Consumer is also Defendant. Levy is NOT counsel for the unrelated plaintiff in that case. Thus, Consumer is mistaken when it provided that Levy was garnishing over $100.00 per week from his/her paycheck. An unrelated law firm was garnishing Consumer's wages pursuant to an entirely unrelated Court judgment, with different plaintiffs. Levy was not involved and had no part in such lawsuit. Once again, at the present time Levy is not garnishing any of Consumer's wages pursuant to the Garnishment Motion it filed on behalf of its client. In fact, to date no amounts have been paid by Consumer to Plaintiff, Levy's client, on the judgment granted more than eighteen months ago to Plaintiff and against Consumer/Defendant. In regards to Consumer's financial situation, Levy fully understands and is sensitive towards Consumer's current financial position. Plaintiff, Levy's client, was granted judgment by the Court against Consumer on August 13, 2010, in the amount of $9,730.60, plus interest and costs. Since that time, no amounts have been paid by Consumer to Plaintiff on the judgment granted to Plaintiff against Consumer/Defendant to reduce such debt. As always, Levy is willing to work with Consumer in order to reach a payment plan that is acceptable and viable for Consumer. Should Consumer desire to do so, he or she should contact Levy to make such arrangements.