National Credit Partners review.
MCA restructuring / consolidation
Restructuring, not settlement: five payments become one. Relief today, sometimes at the cost of paying longer.
Our verdict
National Credit Partners works the restructuring end of the MCA problem: instead of negotiating balances down, the play is consolidating multiple daily-debit positions into one manageable payment structure, replacing high-cost stacking with something a living business can carry.
Understand the trade before you sign. Settlement shrinks the number; restructuring stretches it. For a fundamentally viable business drowning in payment velocity rather than balance size, that can be exactly right. Payroll clears again next week. But a longer tail can also mean paying more in total, and a restructure that isn’t paired with balance negotiation leaves the underlying problem intact.
We rank them last on this list not because the model is illegitimate (it isn’t) but because the value depends heavily on your specific math, the public record is mixed, and the fee mechanics deserve more daylight. Ask for every number in writing, then compare against a settlement quote from the top of this list before committing.
What we like
- Genuine business and MCA focus, they speak the language
- Consolidating stacked advances can genuinely rescue weekly cash flow
- Performance-based pricing on qualifying files
What gave us pause
- Restructuring reduces the payment, not necessarily the balance; total cost can grow
- Less transparency than we’d like on fee mechanics; get everything in writing
- No attorney bench; legal escalations go elsewhere
Who it’s for
- Viable businesses strangled by payment velocity, not balance size
- Owners who cannot risk any default posture
Who should look elsewhere
- Anyone whose balance is the problem, settle instead
- Owners who won’t get every fee term in writing
How National Credit Partners stacks up against our #1 pick
Local guides where readers use this review
In their own words
What customers wrote about National Credit Partners
What satisfied customers wrote
“National Credit Partners have been amazing with whom to work! We found ourselves in a little deep with creditors and needed help. They did what they said they would do and kept in touch with me. When we had problems, they backed us up. The two reps I worked with could not have been more helpful. The attorneys were direct and consistent and did not give up working out a good deal. They communicated and followed up as I needed and, on my schedule, not theirs. I recommend their services to anyone who needs some help with creditors. I feel they saved our business!”
★★★★★ Sam L · 10/23/2024 · BBB
“I have had the pleasure of working with [name withheld] for years now.. they offer relief and a solution to struggling business owners.[name withheld] and [name withheld] go out of their way to make certain the client understands the process and feels heard! Not just there to do a job – they truly care!”
★★★★★ Gigi B · 04/02/2025 · BBB
“[name withheld] was invaluable to helping our company with consolidating a couple of loans so we could concentrate on our business.They were always professional and prompt with replies.”
★★★★★ Albert W · 08/26/2024 · BBB
What complaints and critics wrote
“I found them difficult to work with if you had any trouble keeping up the payment. They took their fee and did not pay my lenders. There was one account they just stopped supporting despite my multiple request. I learned I should have worked with the lenders directly when my business ran into trouble. This was a regrettable decision. One of life's lessons”
★ Russell C · 10/09/2024 · BBB customer review
“The business lied to me by not doing what they said that they were going to do. They were going to lower my payments for my 2 loans. The most important thing to do at that time was to make sure that my 2 loan payments for $3800 would not come out of my account the following day. (Friday) He told yes, I will take care that, and I needed to send the $2982.09 asap to start the debt consolidation. On that Monday, the $3800 and the $2982.09 were both deducted out of my count. When I got ahold the the person that lied to me, he came up with a blatant lie that had me puzzled and very angry. He tried to tell me that he specifically said that I needed to tell my bank to put a stop on the automatic payment withdrawals on those 2 loans. I was so shocked and I told him that I can't believe that you would say that. I reached out to the original person that I talked with, and he was not being helpful, and disregarding some things I was asking him. I asked him if they had the recording of the call, and I was shocked that he said yes. It didn't matter, because they never released it or said the listened to it. Also on that following Monday, there was an email from a female employee, saying that I needed to sign off on a power of attorney form that was in the email. This is another thing that was never brought up or mentioned to me. All of these things that they are requesting should be mentioned and in writing prior to an agreement. Then they had the nerve to take $1782.09 out on that upcoming Friday. I cancelled this agreement immediately, within the 24 hours that request. Any money received should have been returned and no future money to be withdrawn. I also saw in a follow email that the application was not in my writing. I trusted the broker that set this up. I can't imagine that I am the only person that they have lied to and stolen money from. They stole $1229.00 out of the $4764.09 as a fee per their agreement for not cancelling within the 24 hours. I showed them proof.”
Complainant · 09/29/2025 · BBB complaint · Product Issues
The company repliedNational Credit Partners (NCP) is a business debt mediation firm whose client intake primarily occurs through independent referral affiliates. These affiliates conduct initial consultations and, if appropriate, refer business owners to [name withheld] for approval and onboarding. Once enrolled, [name withheld] services the account directly, providing program details, compliance disclosures, and ongoing support. Mr. [name withheld] was referred by an independent broker. The application we received contained a wet ink signature, and [name withheld] account manager spoke with him directly. Our recorded calls confirm that the program was explained, including common voluntary practices such as contacting ones bank to prevent duplicate drafts during the transfer of service. Mr. [name withheld] signed our agreement on March 27 and completed a welcome call, where he confirmed his understanding of the contract terms. The following week, he elected to cancel his enrollment. At that time, his second ACH payment was already in process, but once it cleared, [name withheld] issued a refund per our Refund Agreement and General Release, less only the non-refundable onboarding fee and standard ACH costs. That agreement, signed and verified from Mr. [name withheld] IP address, also included a non-disparagement clause. We regret that Mr. [name withheld] felt dissatisfied with his brief experience. However, [name withheld] adhered to standard procedures and acted in good faith. He signed our agreement, completed compliance steps, and confirmed his understanding of the program. Our team explained the process clearly, including the preventative steps many clients take to avoid duplicate lender drafts. While his referral came through an outside broker, [name withheld] provided full disclosures and compliance directly. The challenges Mr. [name withheld] describes arose from account circumstances and timing, not any failure by [name withheld]. We respectfully submit that it would be unfair for our BBB record to reflect dissatisfaction that does not accurately represent [name withheld] conduct or standards.
“We've had multiple reps from this company calling and emailing our company to spam for business, we've sent repeated communication that we are not interested, have no use for their products, and do not work with debt relief companies only for them to continually reach out and harass us for our business. If they are like this for companies whose business they want, I cannot imagine how they handle their customers.”
Complainant · 07/31/2024 · BBB complaint · Order Issues
The company replied[name withheld] is not a consumer, he is a business operator. We have never had a contract together for a "contract dispute" we have also never "spam'd" [name withheld]'s company with mass, automated messages. I pulled and listened to every call to their phone number in our system. Between early June and the end of July, we had 4 person-to-person conversations with representatives at their company, in regards to an affiliate partnership. We were never once instructed to not call them, we were told "unfortunately, they are not taking on new partners at the moment" and "they have spoken with us before and they are not interested in partnering" but once again, there was never the request of not calling them again. Their claims are false and defamatory. We have DNC'd their 888 number in our phone system. If you would like any information or evidence on the matter, we are happy to provide it.
Quotes are reproduced exactly as written, including original spelling and punctuation, and are trimmed only with an ellipsis where marked. Where the BBB has redacted an employee’s name we show [name withheld]. Reviewers are identified only by the display name their platform shows. We pick quotes to represent the range on each profile, not to make a case, and we publish the overall rating and review count beside them so you can judge how typical any one of them is. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
The court record
Lawsuits involving National Credit Partners
2 matters on file, grouped by who did the suing, because those are not the same fact. We confirmed every one against a court record.
Lawsuits involving National Credit Partners (2)
Each entry is tagged by who brought it. A funder suing a settlement firm and a client suing one are close to opposite facts, so read the tag before the caption.
-
Client sued Letskus v. KVC Group, LLC d/b/a National Credit Partners, Prime Legal Firm, Denise Ho, and Kim Vo Dismissed, without prejudice
DispositionRESOLVED AND CONFIRMED AGAINST THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT. Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE on November 17, 2022 by Judge Fred W. Slaughter (Dkt. 80, in-chambers Civil Minutes – General, 'ORDER DISMISSING CASE,' marked JS-6). The dismissal was sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders: after transfer from the District of Connecticut, plaintiff's counsel never filed viable pro hac vice applications despite three notices and a court order warning that noncompliance 'may result in sanctions or dismissal of the action,' plaintiff filed nothing after the July 2022 transfer, and neither plaintiff nor his counsel appeared at the November 17, 2022 Rule 26(f) conference. Disposition section: 'For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.' There was no ruling on the merits, no finding against the company, and no judgment. UniCourt's listing of this case as open is incorrect; the case was closed JS-6 on November 17, 2022.
Robert Letskus, Jr., an individual, alleged that KVC Group fraudulently induced him to enter a debt relief contract on behalf of his company and that the defendants thereafter maliciously sued him to enforce an arbitration award related to that contract, pleading five claims: fraud, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, civil RICO, and vexatious litigation. On July 6, 2022 Judge Sarala V. Nagala granted the defendants' motion in part on venue grounds under Rule 12(b)(3) and transferred the case to the Central District of California without reaching the merits. After transfer, the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel never obtained pro hac vice admission despite repeated court notices and orders, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared at the November 17, 2022 Rule 26(f) scheduling conference, and opposing counsel reported receiving no responses to emails; the court dismissed the action without prejudice that day for failure to prosecute, so the allegations were never adjudicated.
View the record ↗ -
Other KVC Group, LLC, a California limited liability company doing business as National Credit Partners v. Reliable Capital Solutions LLC and Marcus Uribe Open
DispositionEXISTING ENTRY IS WRONG, NOT MERELY INCOMPLETE. It states that the docket 'ends at June 5, 2024 and shows only case-opening entries.' The case was in fact heavily litigated for at least eighteen months after that. The stipulated protective order (Dkt. 67) records: assigned to Hon. Dale S. Fischer; Complaint filed June 4, 2024; First Amended Complaint filed August 20, 2024; Second Amended Complaint filed November 26, 2024; a Counterclaim filed against KVC Group by defendant Marcus Uribe on July 3, 2024, amended August 1, 2024 and again August 15, 2024; a third defendant, Mary-Eileen Mackey, added; and a TRIAL DATE of December 16, 2025. The company is the plaintiff but also faces a counterclaim. FINAL DISPOSITION STILL NOT ESTABLISHED – the trial date has now passed and the outcome was not retrievable from any free source.
National Credit Partners' corporate entity KVC Group, LLC filed suit as plaintiff against Reliable Capital Solutions LLC and an individual, Marcus Uribe; the docket records the nature of suit as a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, with a jury demanded by the plaintiff. The content of the allegations is not described here because the complaint itself could not be retrieved from a free source, and no disposition has been verified.
View the record ↗
Claims we could not verify, and therefore do not state as fact: “KVC Group LLC v. Emerson Family Care LLC and James Emerson — Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center, filed September 24, 2020, contract action, resolved by default judgment for KVC Group on November 15, 2021” (UniCourt case index (unicourt.com/case/ca-ora-kvc-group-llc-vs-emerson-family-care-llc-1085074)); “KVC Group LLC v. ISA Marketing Group, Inc. and Carl Townsend — Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center, filed February 13, 2020, contract action, entire action dismissed without prejudice by court order April 23, 2021” (UniCourt case index (unicourt.com/case/ca-ora-kvc-group-llc-vs-isa-marketing-group-inc-1052883)); “KVC Group LLC v. XDI Medical Imaging — Orange County Superior Court, Civil Complex Center, small claims matter filed July 8, 2020” (UniCourt case index (unicourt.com/case/ca-ora-kvc-group-llc-vs-xdi-medical-imaging-1068101)); “Customers state on Trustpilot that they were 'scammed' and propose filing joint lawsuits against National Credit Partners” (Trustpilot reviews for nationalcreditpartners.org). Each appears online with no court, caption, or docket behind it. We list them so you know we looked.
Court records are public and they change. A filed complaint contains allegations, not findings, and a case appearing here is not a conclusion that the company did anything wrong. Where a case ended, we say how it ended. Where we could not confirm a docket, we say that too. One limit worth knowing: free docket sources show only what someone has already paid to fetch, so a case we describe as open may have been resolved since the date shown against it. Treat every date here as the last time the record was refreshed, not as today. Last verified August 24, 2026.