Complaint Review: Hampton & Hampton Collections LLC.

The tricky thing about this collection agency is that they will charge you late fees because of delays in the mail. For example, if you postmark a check on the 14th, that's due on the 15th, but arrives on the 17th, they will charge you a late fee. Normally, collection agencies cannot charge late fees because its against the FDCPA. This one will claim it can do so under the guise of the contract. This, even if true, isn't necessarily legal, What you should do if it happens to you is raise the defense in court that the contract is an adhesion contract. Then, state that the provision charging late fees from the date of receipt is substantively unconscionable. It should render the contractual provision void. If possible, get a lawyer to sue them for punitive damages and/or class-action. This is probably something they've done for a long time. Don't roll over just because its in the contract. The law does entitle them for additional monies over time, but this is something we, in the normal world, call "interest".

Best of luck and fight for what's right guys!

References:

Obstetrics and Gynecologists v. Pepper, 693 P. 2d 1259 - Nev: Supreme Court 1985 at page 1260: "An adhesion contract has been defined as a standardized contract form offered to consumers of goods and services essentially on a "take it or leave it" basis, without affording the consumer a realistic opportunity to bargain, and under such conditions that the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service except by acquiescing to the form of the contract. Miner v. Walden, 101 Misc.2d 814, 422 N.Y.S.2d 335, 337 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979). The distinctive feature of an adhesion contract is that the weaker party has no choice as to its terms. Wheeler v. St. Joseph Hospital, 63 Cal. App.3d 345, 133 Cal. Rptr. 775, 783 (1976)."

DR Horton, Inc. v. Green, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 - Nev: Supreme Court 2004: "A clause is procedurally unconscionable when a party lacks a meaningful opportunity to agree to the clause terms either because of unequal bargaining power, as in an adhesion contract, or because the clause and its effects are not readily ascertainable upon a review of the contract."

Gonski v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 245 P. 3d 1164 - Nev: Supreme Court 2010 at page 1169: "Generally, in considering substantive unconscionability, courts look for terms that are `"oppressive."' Burch, 118 Nev. at 444, 49 P.3d at 651 (quoting 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 533, 541 (Ct. App. 1998))."

Burch v. Dist. Ct., 49 P. 3d 647 - Nev: Supreme Court 2002 at page 650: "Generally, both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause as unconscionable."