|
Community Justice Project |
|
Improving the Lives of Low Income Pennsylvanians |
|
Harrisburg Office 118 Locust St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 236-9486 (phone) (717) 233-4088 (fax) 1-800-322-7572 (toll free)
Pittsburgh Office Suite 1705 429 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 434-6002 (phone) (412) 434-5706 (fax) 1-866-482-3076 (toll free)
Hispanic Outreach Offices (Ayuda en Espańol)
Pittsburgh Suite 1705 429 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 434-6176 (office) (412) 715-1750 (cell) (412) 434-5706 (fax)
Reading c/o Centro Hispano 501 Washington St. Reading, PA 19601 (610) 741-7995 (phone) (610) 372-2619 (fax)
Hazleton 2 East Broad Street Room 204 Hazleton, PA 18201 (570) 582-5816 (phone) (570) 459-5815 (fax)
|
|
Cataquet v. American Credit Counseling Service This Middle District of Pennsylvania class action alleges that ACCS violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Due Process Clause in the operation of its “bad check diversion programs.” The plaintiffs have alleged that ACCS contracts with DA’s throughout Pennsylvania to operate these programs. ACCS uses DA letterhead to contact individuals accused of writing bad checks, threatens them with criminal prosecution and demands repayment of the checks along with substantial fees. Plaintiffs allege that the tactics employed by ACCS do not comply with the FDCPA or the FCEUA.
Soto et al. v. Bank of Lancaster County This Eastern District of Pennsylvania class action challenges BLC’s practice of charging customers large fees for paying overdrafts made with ATM and debit cards. The Complaint alleges violations of the National Bank Act, the Truth in Lending Act and state consumer protection statutes. Copies of the Complaint and other filings can be obtained by contacting Maggie Schuetz at CJP’s Pittsburgh office.
Woodsbey v. A&M Homes, et al. In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding a single mother of three on social security alleges that she was a victim of predatory lending, a real estate “flipping” scheme and an over-appraisal. Copies of the Complaint and briefs can be obtained by contacting Maggie Schuetz at CJP’s Pittsburgh office.
Houck v. Capital Asset/Foley v. Pittsburgh
These cases challenged interest and penalty charges in excess of a state law mandated 10% simple rate resulting from non-payment of tax or other municipal claims. Houck succeeded against assignees of the City of Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh School District and the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (U.S. District Court and the Third Circuit) and Foley against the City and School District directly (Allegheny Co. C.P. Court). The cases resulted in injunctive relief and a refund of excessive charges. This was despite Pittsburgh’s home rule authority and numerous affirmative defenses. Each case also established a right to an objective, affordable payment plan on behalf of owner occupants to avert foreclosures. Individual class member implementation issues continue. The need for statutory reform to limit unreasonable charges, protect owner occupied property owner’s rights of redemption and protect owner occupied property owner’s payment plan rights has been identified and is now being explored.
Bank One v. Gregory Mitchell et al. Represented low-income credit card holders defending state court’s refusal to enter default judgments confirming arbitration awards obtained ex parte by Bank One. On appeal, the Appellees argued that a state trial court may refuse to enter an order confirming an ex-parte arbitration award under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Arbitration Act when: 1) the award’s proponent failed to establish by court order prior to arbitration that the opposing party had executed the alleged arbitration agreement, and the opponent did not otherwise assent to arbitration proceedings; 2) the award’s proponent never served the opponent with a notice to defend, notice to plead or a notice of praecipe for default judgment in the state court confirmation proceeding; or 3) the award’s proponent failed to produce credible evidence at the confirmation proceeding that the opposing party entered into an arbitration agreement. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in favor of the Appellees and affirmed the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the rules committee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court published new civil rules to govern proceedings brought by consumer creditors under the Uniform Arbitration Act.
In re Joint application of Equitable Resources, Inc. and The Peoples Natural Gas Company. Represented the Mon Valley Unemployed Committee (MVUC) as an intervener in a proceeding seeking Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approval of the acquisition of the stock and rights of The Peoples Natural Gas Company by Equitable Resources, Inc by Equitable Resources, Inc. Because approval of the acquisition would result in a monopoly of natural gas distribution in southwestern Pennsylvania, an area with the second highest concentration of payment-troubled customers in the state, MVUC filed a Protest and Petition to Intervene seeking to ensure the proposed acquisition would result in substantial affirmative public benefits as required by Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Code and Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act. Relevant to its constituents, MVUC raised issues regarding the companies’ Universal Service Programs, customer service performance standards and employment practices. Coordinating with other interveners, the Office of Consumer Advocate, Office of PUC Trial Staff and state representative Jake Wheatley, MVUC negotiated a settlement with the companies conditioning their agreement not to challenge the acquisition on: the creation of a collaborative to resolve universal service and energy conservation issues; minimum levels of hardship funding for low-income consumers; continuation of funding levels for community groups; retention of community based organizations to administer the Companies’ universal service programs; development of a program to increase hiring and training of low-income and minority employees; removal of ceilings on Customer Assistance Program (CAP) enrollment; reduction/partial elimination of security deposits required for reentry into CAP; and the setting of enforceable service quality index standards.
|
|
Consumer Protection |
|
CJP helps low-income consumers protect themselves from abusive practices by lenders, banks, debt collectors and others by: |
|
· Challenging abusive bank fees; · Helping individuals understand, identify and protect themselves from predatory lending practices. · Enforcing statutes which protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices. |
|
Litigation |