McGlynn Marketing, doing business as United Credit Consultants and Debt Settlement Solutions is back in the news again. A reader alerted me to a recent enforcement action against the company so I hunted it down.
My perplexation (just made that word up) started back in March, 2014 when I wrote “United Credit Consultants Says the Darndest Things.”
If United Credit Consultants hired people to help them out over that article, it was money, well, spent. Someone filed a bogus copyright complaint with Google over the article and wanted it removed from search and others jumped in the comments to tell me how wrong I was about the company.
The article got the standard approach of attacking me rather than the facts presented and DN said, “Why don’t you update your information (that you are wrong about). They did and do have a debt settlement license and your libelous article has been forwarded to their lawyer. I also have it on good authority that they plan to prepare one hell of a lawsuit against you for the defamation. In addition, since you defamed a company in Minnesota, you are actually liable for CRIMINAL defamation of character charges – a gross misdemeanor with a potential for 5 years in prison and a charge that the Dakota County Attorney in Dakota County Minnesota (where United Credit Consultants is located) repeatedly peruses against people who have done just what you did here.”
Janet said, “I think you should apologize. It’s difficult for people to apologize. No one likes to admit they are wrong or that they screwed up. No one likes the complicated, defeated feelings that come with being wrong and screwing up. No one likes having to go to other people, publicly or privately, and admit to them they’ve been wrong and have screwed up. It is, literally, humiliating, since apologizing almost always requires humility and a willingness to put the needs of those you have wronged over your own.”
So it clearly appears some people felt my original article treated United Credit Consultants unfairly despite the fact nobody could identify any information that was in error in the article. To me it looked like the standard attack and deflect approach others have used.
And Then This Happened
So the company, United Credit Consultants, who commenters alleged was unfairly treated in my March, 2014 article just entered a consent order with the State of Minnesota on October 1, 2015 over its services.
The consent order was accepted and signed by Joe McGlynn, CEO of McGlynn Marketing, LLC d/b/a United Credit Consultants, d/b/a Debt Settlement Solutions. The dispute with the State of Minnesota was “based on allegations” that the company was doing some things they should no have been doing.
The consent order says United Credit Consultants is alleged to have:
- Engaged in unregistered debt settlement services, despite a consent order prohibiting these activities;
- Utilized a contract containing an arbitration clause which improperly required consumers to waive their right to court action and arbitrate disputes involving credit services;
- Utilized a contract containing an arbitration clause which improperly required consumers to waive their right to a jury trial and arbitrate disputes involving debt settlement services;
- Charged and collected improper fees for debt settlement services;
- Improperly supervised its employees and contractors;
- Demonstrated financial irresponsibility, issued checks without sufficient funds, and failed to timely address consumers’ billing complaints;
- Charged and collected fees prior to full performance of all agreed upon credit services; and
- Engaged in dishonest practices, whether such practices were intentional or inadvertent.
The consent order goes on to say the company has now hired a Chief Compliance Officer and plans to update consumer agreements and address the other issues.
The companies credit services registration and debt settlement service registration was revoked but revocation was stayed as long as the company engaged in “no further violation of any law, rule, or order related to the duties entrusted to the Commissioner.” So the State feels comfortable in allowing the company to continue to operate.
The company was assessed a $150,000 civil penalty but “$100,000 of the civil penalty is stayed so long as Respondent fully complies with the terms of this order and engages in no further violation of any law, rule, or order.”
If anyone is interested in reading the consent order, click here.
So if history is any indication about the response in the comments, let the flaming begin. And before anyone starts early with the attacks against me again, let me make it perfectly clear that I have no hatred or ill will against any of the companies. There is no motive here other than to report on the consent order McGlynn entered into with the State and the allegations the State made.
If anyone can find any fact in error in this article, rather than rage on in the comments, just report it to me here. Please.
If you have a credit or debt question you’d like to ask just use the online form. I’m happy to help you totally for free.