Enforcement record
Vengroff Williams, Inc.: Connecticut Dept. of Banking action, 2013
By Kai Greenspan, Founding Editor · Last updated: July 22, 2026
This page reports on a public regulatory record and describes only what that document states. It is not legal advice and is not a consumer report. If you believe anything here is inaccurate, tell us through our corrections policy and we will check it against the source.
- Regulator
- Connecticut Dept. of Banking
- Date of order
- May 16, 2013
- Penalty
- $10,000
- Status
- Resolved
What the regulator found
The consent order sets out the following. Each is the Connecticut Department of Banking’s own account of the matter, not this site’s conclusion.
Unlicensed collection in Connecticut (alleged)
Following an investigation and examination by its Consumer Credit Division, the Commissioner alleged that Vengroff Williams acted as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut without a consumer collection agency license during the period of January to September 4, 2012.
Charges added to claims (alleged)
The Commissioner alleged that in January 2012 the company added charges or fees to the amount of claims it received for collection:
“during the period of January 1 to January 31, 2012, Vengroff Williams added charges or fees to the amount of claims which it received for collection, in violation of Section 36a-805(13) of the Connecticut General Statutes”The consent order, recitals.
A material misstatement in the license application (alleged)
The Commissioner further alleged that the company made a material misstatement in its February 2012 application for a Connecticut consumer collection agency license, answering "No" to the civil-disclosure question about prior litigation.
How it was resolved
Vengroff Williams consented to the sanctions without admitting or denying any allegation, to avoid formal administrative proceedings. It was ordered to immediately cease and desist from adding charges and fees in violation of Section 36a-805(13), and paid a $10,000 civil penalty. The order became final when issued, at Hartford, on May 16, 2013. The company held a Connecticut license at the time of the order and remains in business today.
Why this is on the directory
Debt Collection Index publishes verified public-record facts about collection agencies, both positive and negative, so the picture is complete. An enforcement action is one factual dimension among many; it sits alongside the company’s bond history, verified licenses and complaint record on the full profile.
See the full profile: Vengroff Williams, Inc..
Connecticut Department of Banking, Consent Order, In the Matter of Vengroff Williams, Inc. (announced in Department Bulletin 2571)
Primary document read in full, July 22, 2026, from the Internet Archive: the regulator removed the original page in a website reorganization, so the citation links the archived copy of the order.
Common questions
What did Connecticut regulators allege about Vengroff Williams?
The Connecticut Department of Banking alleged that Vengroff Williams acted as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut without a license between January and September 2012, added charges or fees to claims it received for collection, and made a material misstatement in its license application. The company resolved the allegations by a 2013 consent order, without admitting or denying them.
How was the 2013 Connecticut matter resolved?
Vengroff Williams was ordered to immediately cease and desist from adding charges and fees to claims, and paid a $10,000 civil penalty. The order was issued at Hartford on May 16, 2013 and resolved the matter.
Related pages
All enforcement records
Every listed agency with a resolved regulatory action, sourced to the primary document.
Is this debt collector legitimate?
The three public-record checks: the bond register, complaints and enforcement.
Methodology & sources
What we measure, where the data comes from, and what we do not claim.