Reviewers from the Better Business Bureau and Google also concluded that the defendants` positive reviews were inaccurate. One Google reviewer wrote that “all good reviews [about Strategic] are wrong. If you are in debt, you run away. As noted in paragraph 91 above, a BBB reviewer expressed skepticism about Monarch`s only positive assessment. Please find another location. This company charges an upfront fee, I mean, most of your monthly payments are just fees. I pay $800+/month and only $50 goes to May savings for settlement. How is it possible to go to billing with only small amounts? I am withdrawing my program for 3 months and have only received a refund of $170. $2230 was thrown down the drain.
Some reputable businesses do not charge an upfront fee unless they have a settlement. Please avoid! The city`s investigation shows that defendants attract additional customers by posting fake positive reviews to hide the honest negative reviews that businesses regularly receive. The defendants intend that potential consumers rely on false positive reviews to choose to participate in the defendant`s program. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to amend the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR Part 310, to regulate debt relief companies that use telemarketing to contact potential consumers or receive calls in response to mail and other advertising. See TSR Modified Rule 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 48457-523 (August 10, 2010). The rule prohibits debt relief companies from charging fees before paying or settling consumer debt.
It also requires debt relief companies to disclose a lot of information about their services, including how long it will take to achieve results, how much it will cost, and what negative consequences could result. The rule applies to both lawyers and non-lawyers and prohibits companies from knowingly providing “substantial support” to a company that violates the rule. One. A requirement for oral and written disclosure to potential consumers, including a warning that debt settlement services “may not be suitable for all consumers” and that consumers “should inquire about other ways of dealing with debt, including, but not limited to, non-profit credit counselling and bankruptcy.” 225 ILCS 429/115(a). After taking into account the various fees charged by the defendant, consumers end up paying only a small amount into their reserves to settle their debts. For example, after 10 months of participating in a program, only 4% of a consumer`s payments were made on invoices. This consumer had paid the defendants $3,616.80, but the defendants charged more than 96% of these payments – or $3,476.21 – as costs. Strategic Financial Solutions works with a number of fraudulent debt settlement companies, including Carolina Legal Services, a law firm specializing in debt settlement that recently closed following an investigation by the North Carolina State Bar and the suspension of the attorney in charge of the law firm.
Strategic Financial Solutions also works with Timberline Financial, LLC, which lists the same office addresses as Strategic Financial Solutions on its website. Timberline entered into a consent and contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for violation of the Pennsylvania Debt Settlement Services Act. Javid H from Finance Solutions has a fantastic collaboration with himself. He is always available to answer my questions and very knowledgeable in his work. I felt like a failure when I called his company. After a few minutes of talking to Javid, he made me feel better and made me realize that I wasn`t the only one struggling financially. He explained to me how the program works and that I would eventually be debt-free. Many thanks to Javid for your kindness and expertise! Teresa B For anyone who has been scammed by one of these companies, opt for a refund. I am convinced that if I had not moved it forward, they would have ignored it.
It was only when I insisted that this happen that they acted. I hope they are on the Attorney General`s radar and are being kicked out of business. If you`re considering signing with a similar company, don`t do it. It was the worst decision I ever made. Try negotiating settlements yourself, get a second job, use the snowball approach to debt. Everything but them. The following example of a Chicago consumer illustrates the defendant`s failure to provide legal advice in connection with a settlement. The defendants entered into a contract with a local lawyer who is not employed by Monarques to represent the consumer in a dispute with a creditor.
The lawyer did not appear in the proceedings and the creditor received a default judgment against the consumer. After the verdict was delivered, the defendants negotiated a settlement. The consumer signed a settlement agreement requiring substantial monthly payments, which he knew would come from his account with the defendants. But the defendants settled the bill for more than the consumer could pay. Monarch says on its website that, thanks to its debt resolution program, it can often negotiate with its creditors to pay “a few cents on the dollar.” Monarch also tells consumers that they will be “on the path to a future without heavy debt”: Third, consumer debt with a balance of less than $1,000 is not repayable. To further reduce the likelihood of legal representation, Monarques` advance contracts significantly restrict the provision of these services. For example, Monarch reserves the right to refuse to provide legal defense services if the client does not have to submit all pages of the subpoena, complaint, evidence, and briefs to Monarch and be filed within 15 or 7 days, depending on the state. Monarch also requires that payments in the client`s account be up to date. Importantly, consumers pay legal fees, even if Monarch refuses to provide these services. Former and current employees reported that this discrepancy was part of the defendant`s marketing program. According to employee feedback on Glassdoor, Strategic Financial Services is asking its employees to post fake positive reviews to cover up the truthful negatives: The defendants also completely failed to handle the settlement.
The defendants did not make settlement payments from the consumer`s account. The creditor filed an application for reinstatement and default judgment for non-payment of composition payments, and the consumer was vulnerable to wage garnishment and other negative consequences. In November 2019, I had just under 6 figures of credit card debt and while I was up to date with everything, I drowned. I do low 6 numbers, but I had very high balances ($20k+), so the minimum payments were huge and I couldn`t move forward. I went to Credit Karma and looked for personal loan options to consolidate debt at a lower interest rate. I have checked with some companies. Based on public documents, information, and beliefs, Strategic also partnered with Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, a Chicago-based consumer credit company that operated nationwide as an alleged law firm. The State of Illinois sued Legal Helpers and its principals in 2012 for similar consumer protection violations. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said Legal Helpers` lawyers are “a front for levying high fees on troubled consumers.” Legal Helpers has agreed to reimburse Illinois consumers $2.1 million as part of a settlement. The outrage of companies that remain silent is not synonymous with measures to protect good companies or debt relief for consumers who need serious help. All of these companies replied, but one of them was actually a Chicago-based debt settlement company called Monarch Legal Group. They claimed they could reduce my total payments and settle my balances for much less (up to 50%) than was owed.
My instincts warned me, but I ignored it – I was desperate. Soon after, they reached a settlement with a 3rd creditor and this time there were savings. So now I had 3 accounts in active settlements and payment plans. But 2 of the remaining 4 had large balances, so I was worried that another lawsuit was looming.