Violation of FDCPA by Collection Agency
Date: Wed, 04/07/2010 - 18:43
- Identify themselves and notify the consumer, in every communication, that the communication is from a debt collector, and in the initial communication that any information obtained will be used to effect collection of the debt[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices_Act#cite_note-16"][17][/URL]
I have gotten more than one voice mail on my phone from a Tricia, simply telling me to call a number, that it's "urgent" that I do this as soon as possible, and tells me to reference a case number. She never states who she is calling for, what the reason for the phone call is, or what company she is representing. In other words, she never recites the "mini-Miranda." I have at least two messages saved in my voice mail of the same woman doing this.
What steps do I need to take with this?
Yeah, not disclosing the identity and the purpose of contact can
Yeah, not disclosing the identity and the purpose of contact can be regarded as a 1. You may file complaint against them with the FTC, BBB and the state AG.
The debt collector can also be sued by the customer for 1.
BTW, who these people are?
Yeah, not disclosing the identity and the purpose of contact can
Yeah, not disclosing the identity and the purpose of contact can be regarded as a violation of FDCPA. You may file complaint against them with the FTC, BBB and the state AG.
The debt collector can also be sued by the customer for FDCPA violation.
BTW, who these people are?
Try searching for a consumer attorney at the link below: http://
Try searching for a consumer attorney at the link below:
http://www.fairdebtforconsumers.com/
To answer SC's question, they are Nelson, Watson, & Associates.
To answer SC's question, they are Nelson, Watson, & Associates. They are a third party collector for Capital One right now. I've already spoken to them on the phone. Before my research, I unfortunately was naive. However, now that I've learned a bit more and am better informed, I have ceased accepting their phone calls and mailed off my "debt validation" letter this past Thursday, certified mail and RRR. I have at least two messages in my VM on my cell phone right now that don't have ANY identification.
Shazzers, I will be checking the link you posted. I have received invaluable assistance so far from you all at this site!
They can't legally leave any information that they are calling a
They can't legally leave any information that they are calling about a debt in case there is a third party who might hear the message. Reciting the mini-Miranda in a message is a FDCPA violation.
thats exactly what I was going to say--there was no violaton her
thats exactly what I was going to say--there was no violaton here. If they identified you or themselves in a voicemail, they would be disclosing information to a source that could possibly be a third party. They acted within the law to leave those messages on your voicemail. You have no case against them as it stands right now.
Yup...they cannot disclose on a phone message...no violation. L
Yup...they cannot disclose on a phone message...no violation. Leaving a message is not considered a contact.
They did identify me. They used my name both times. Not only tha
They did identify me. They used my name both times. Not only that, but I was looking at my mother's call log for her house... they reached me on March 19th on my cell phone. They knew they could reach me there. I looked at the call log and saw that they called my mother twice on the 23rd of March and once on the 24th of March. They shouldn't have been calling my mother's house. I did contact a lawyer and he has all the information and he's looking through it right now. I'm just waiting to hear back from him.
Still no violation by leaving messages on the voice mail without
Still no violation by leaving messages on the voice mail without id'ing themselves. A message is not a communication....it is simply a message.
Quote:Originally Posted by SOAPLADYStill no violation by leaving
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOAPLADY Still no violation by leaving messages on the voice mail without id'ing themselves. A message is not a communication....it is simply a message. |
I have to disagree on this one. This is not just about the message anymore. With this new development, we now have a third party contact issue as well, and that can most definitely be a violation.
FDCPA section 805 deals with third party contact, and as long as they know where to find the debtor, they are not allowed to call a third party whether they leave a message or not. The key here is to be able to prove that they knew where to contact the debtor, and the phone records prove that. There is also proof of this because the OP even spoke to them before when they called the same number they spoke to him/her. But I would want more proof than that, and so I would look to my credit reports. For example, if they put an inquiry on my credit report on, say, March 11, that would mean that they saw whatever the current address is thats listed there. That would further show that they had no permissable purpose to call mom's house.
The messages themselves do not break the law. The fact that they are calling your mom AFTER they learned where to contact you, however, IS a violation. Especially if this is a debt collector that was hired by the original creditor, and you still live at the same address that the OC has on file--then there is simply no excuse at all for them trying to call your mom.
Finally, if we go by the letter of the law, a voicemail message IS communication. Reference the FDCPA, here's their definition of "communication":
Quote:
The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. |
By the letter of the law, a voicemail message is most definitely communication.
Sorry but leaving a simple message to call without identifying i
Sorry but leaving a simple message to call without identifying information is not a conveyance of a debt. Contacting third parties I will not argue with....that would be a violation. But calling a debtor back and leaving a message to call is not. When I was working federal accounts, a simple message is not even considered a contact to meet due diligence.
while that may be true, youre not talking about the same thing.
while that may be true, youre not talking about the same thing. When it comes to due dilligence, that is an entirely different standard that exists for an entirely different reason and purpose. Due dilligence is not at all a concept that is set forth in the FDCPA, so it has no bearing on a discussion regarding what is or is not a violation of the FDCPA. The FDCPA clearly states that the conveying of ANY information regarding a debt, directly or indirectly, to any person, using any method, constitutes communication. There is no ambiguity there. The law further does not make mention of any minimum requirement as to the amount or content of the information that is conveyed. So, as I said "going by the letter of the law", a message is communication. Think about it--if a debt collector called and left a message on an answering machine that said, "This is not a solicitation call, this is a call about an urgent business matter. Return the call to 1-800-123-4567--if you do not, we will move forward with the criminal complaint"......THAT is a violation, and its a violation regardless of whether or not it was only a message on a voicemail. The FDCPA simply does not have any such requirement as to the term "communication". Like I said, the FDCPA doesnt use the same standard youre talking about now.
I saw on my credit record where they had made a request to see t
I saw on my credit record where they had made a request to see the record. So they know where I live. Not only that, but I verified where I lived to them the first time we spoke on the phone. I do not know if my mother spoke to the people at her house, I have two brothers who get phone calls at her house as well. But every time she gets a call for one of us, she automatically tells them that we haven't lived there for years and to please take her number off the list. I have a feeling, in this case, that my mom did not speak with them personally. She just did not pick up the phone. However, they shouldn't have been calling her house. Especially when I informed them in our first conversation that where they called me was where they could reach me all the time.
And thank you for your clarification concerning the phone messag
And thank you for your clarification concerning the phone messages themselves. It seems to me that I read a piece of information off another website that was misleading. What the both of you have said makes absolute 100% sense and I agree with you.