what is a 'threat'?

Under the not threats, you wrote, I suggest you hire a lawyer for this matter. This is why Ellis Crosby is in so much legal trouble and 1st Credit of America, United Legal Corporation you know the rest are getting into trouble. I don't agree with all your wordings under "not threats". Maybe if collection agencies would quit using scare tactics and try to be decent, they would get a whole lot farther.

merely suggesting someone hire a lawyer isn't a threat. why would it be? that statement alone means nothing unless you have something to be scared of when hearing it. although you may not agree with my wordings under 'not threats,' it's all true. NONE of those are threats. one can *assume* they are threats, but they are simply questions. maybe if debtors would understand how collections works, they wouldn't feel as if they're always being threatened and harassed.

I'm not scared of these tactics anymore, to me all a collector is trying to do is line there pockets. That is why I tape record all conversations, amazing how much back tracking a collector does when they find out they are being tape recorded. Even had one collection agency call me a liar, curse, threaten my kids and my husband job and that we never had anything stolen, then when proof was faxed and the sheriffs deputy listened to the recorded conversation, called and verified the information they gladly backed off and worked with us.

Hi Matt,

I also disagree with what you have posted under 'No threats'. Basically, while any conversation is taking place with the collector, he does not keep in mind what you have posted under it. He crosses the lines assuming that he is saying something legal. But when the recording is heard by any lawyer, it is considered as illegal and thereby actions are taken.

It's the tone that makes the situation worse. No fdcpa law allows shouting and scaring to death while the CA says 'do you want to get calls every day' or other 'do you..." that you mentioned. To you, it may sound that he is only specifying the action but has not taken yet. But, if you review the complete case file of Ellis Crosby, the threats were based on these motives and as result, they are undergoing legal actions. If it is allowed, why did companies with similar complaints face legal actions? Your comments will be appreciated. Thanks

Ben is right, perception is the key.. that is why recording of calls is so important ( on either side) if a majority of the evidence says someone was threatend, a court will likely rule that way

[quote=ben]It's the tone that makes the situation worse.[/quote]That is the point. Your way of pitching develops a scaring approach :evil: within you which could be cooperative :D otherwise.

The phrases that CollectorMatt has mentioned under ???not threats??? column could be considered as ???not threats??? if they are delivered with proper manner. Sorry to say, it never happens...

I am so glad to see someone agrees with me!! :lol:

Mom of twins, we all will stay together and eradicate the problems faced in collection industry. :D

Here is what the US Code Collection:
Title 15 Chapter 41, Subchapter V,?? 1692d. Harassment or Abuse says:
Release date: 2005-08-01
A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.
(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.
(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681a (f) or 1681b (3) [1] of this title.
(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.
(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.
(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity.

Anything you say that you know you can not do, harassmeent is NOT defined in the fdcpa, it is anything a person deems harrassing, and you can not tell them you are going to garnish, you are not, only if they are in a garnishment state, and you have a judgment in hand can you say such a statement, calling each day is also threats, if that person says don't call and you do, (they need to fax or send it in writing) that is against the FDCPA A good collector does not need to say these things to collect, if they need to say these things they need to go back to training, it is people like that that give bad names to those who are good agents

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

[quote]Here is what the US Code Collection:
Title 15 Chapter 41, Subchapter V,?? 1692d. Harassment or Abuse says:
Release date: 2005-08-01
A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.
(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.
(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681a (f) or 1681b (3) [1] of this title.
(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.
(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.
(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity.[/quote]

sorry, but i don't see where is states that i can't use any of the phrases on my list. please specify???????

Quote:

Quote:

In the state I live in all I have to do is state that the conversation is being recorded and if you continue talking, you are giving your permission. If they continue talking they are giving their permission. You can not threaten to have children taken away for not paying a debt. I have had collection agencies ring the phone off the wall, calling 7 times a day after they talk to someone, and our attorney stated that is ILLEGAL!!! Once they talk to someone they can not call back the same day. I have been cursed at, called a liar, told to get off my ass and get a job. Now tell me that is not illegal comments. I'll tell you how low collection agencies will go, United Legal called our mortgage company after pulling a credit report without our permission, to ask if we had equity in our home and luckily the mortgage company refused the information. That is illegal! Yes, I do admit there are very few that go by the book, but there are alot of agencies that break the rules and do eventually get caught. We had our court hearing with Encore yesterday about their many, many fdcpa violations and guess what, they didn't even show up. Why you ask, because they knew they were caught and in the wrong.

I was wondering what you were using to base your list on, since I didn't see it in the actual code. Is your list just your personal opinion or interpertation of the code? or is this actual language listed somewhere?
Also, why do you use the Freddie character is your picture and the notation "You can run, but you can't hide"? Do you assume that all debtors are deadbeats and that you are doing some great service hunting them down? I like many people made some bad choices and am trying to deal with the creditors, but want to be treated in a respectful manner. I have a job, work hard, have a family, and am a respectable person, so I don't believe that I need to be talked to disrespectfully. I have paid according to every arrangment I have made, but I do understand how someone chould make unrealistic payment promises when pressured by a collector. Try to remember that debtor are not all bums trying to get out of paying their bills when you make your calls.

Very well put Kathryn :)

Matt, this section:A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

to follow my last post, this general clause is where most of the successful litigation comes from.. as a verdict depends on which side has the most evidence to prove their point. Hence the reason why recording, and written records are so very valuable. Perception of intent is usually far easier to prove for the "victim", especially in front of a jury.

Quote:

Quote:

If you state the call is recorded, it is perfectly legal to record the call. You do not have to have call recording notification beeps in the background.

I was told by the Attorney General office in my state that as long as I tell them in the beginning that I am recording the call and they if they keep talking they are giving their permission is legal.

Clay,

Quote:

Actually you are not entirely correct. You do NOT need permission to record the call IF the recording party or the recording party's phone system clearly states calls are recorded. 100's of THOUSANDS of companies do this.

My specific questions is Illinois Law requires consent of only one party (obviously in this case the CA), but If I state (and obviously its recorded) that I Do not give permission, does that then nullify their consent?? Obviously they can still record and I have no way to know if they did or not, however If I state they do not have my consent, does that make their recording inadmissible by law?

If you say that you do not give your consent to the recording, and on the other hand, continue with what you have to say, by law you have actually given the permission to the recording.

You will have to assume that the collector is secretly trying to record your call. He does not even require your permission for doing so.

I also e-mailed this question to the Illinois Attorney Generals office. If I get a responce , I will share it withthe community.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Haha, CollectorMatt, they are talking about your picture of Alice Cooper...I think they think it is Nightmare on Elm Street Freddie:).

Who do I contact to find out if I have to let someone know they are being recorded..I live in Texas, and I think we have to state it, but then someone else told me that as long as one party member (that would be me) knows the call is being recorded, then it is ok to do so..that didn't sound right.

TMD

Secretly recording debt collection phone calls is legal in Texas. You don't have to inform the other party that you are recording it.

Once you get sufficient proof of the violation of the law, you can consult an attorney and file legal charges on the company for using unfair and illegal debt collection methods.

Out of the 50 states in US, 35 states and the District of Columbia allows recording the phone calls without taking permission from the other party. These states are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

State laws of the remaining 15 states require permission of the other party before you record the call. If you are talking to the collector and mention that the call is being recorded, if he continues to talk, the permission is considered granted.