Collecting from a business

I am a former Minnesota collector for over a decade. And you are wrong.

There is nothing against the FDCPA or MN statutues for a collector to call someone at work provided they do not disclose the debt. If the debtor cannot receive calls at work, they need to tell the collector that. If they call back, then it is illegal.

You might want to keep your nose out of other peoples private business.

soap, in all fairness, the one and only reason why the OP knew who was calling and why they were calling is because Midland violated the FDCPA. He didnt "stick his nose in other people's private business", they illegally disclosed that business to him. Yes, he was incorrect in his assumption about the law, but that isnt a reason to slam him like you did.

Yeah that???s true. The debt collector has in fact violated FDCPA by calling the OP for somebody else???s debt and disclosing about the same. Moreover, the OP doesn???t even owe any kind of money to MCM. Furthermore, the debt collector started shouting at the OP.

The collector didn't necessarily violate the FDCPA. We don't have the facts. Just because the OP knows that MCM is a collection agency doesn't mean anything was disclosed. It's highly likely that when MCM asked for the employee, the OP asked "who's calling" and, by law, they are obligated to give the name of the company. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Midland Credit Management is a bill collector.

Thank you OHIO. From my experience as a collector, receptionists, coworkers, family and friends often get very nosey when someone is calling and information not being disclosed. It is quite frustrating for a good collector and when people start yelling facts out with University of Phoenix law degree....well you get the picture.

There's also a good chance that the person who answered the phone at the business googled the incoming telephone number. Or, MCM simply appeared on Caller ID. Either way, the employee is going to have to let MCM know that they cannot accept calls at work - that should do the trick.

Soap, please dont take this as disrespect because I hold no disrespect towards you, but I cannot agree with what you are saying. For one thing, even if you leave out the possibility of third party disclosure, you yourself know that the one and only thing that can be discussed by the CA on that call is trying to locate the person. The fact that the collector lost control and began shouting and arguing with the guy on the phone in itself violates the FDCPA. A professional collector would have at that point, once they realized they were not going to get the answer they were looking for, said "Thank you, have a nice day" and ended the call. There is no excuse--"university of Phoenix law degree" or not--for a debt collector calling and acting like that. Thats why such behavior is against the FDCPA. For another, I know MCM. And while there is a possibility that the CA didnt disclose anything, I know their track record. They LOVE to try to embarrass people into paying. I actually had MCM hounding us one time over a debt we never started. The lady on the phone threatened to call my wife's boss, my boss(and I own my own business so I AM my boss), and our family members and "expose you for the deadbeats you are". And this was the first phone call, when I couldnt even get them to tell me who the original creditor supposedly was or when this debt supposedly originated. Since that time, it has been learned that they were trying to collect on a credit card debt that was supposedly only a year old, and they did not, could not, and would not produce anything with either of our signatures on it. Then, they claimed the debt was older than what we had been told--this would have been before we got married--and they threatened to come after me for a debt that they claim was in my wife's name solely.

You were a collector, would you yell at people on the phone like that? When you arent even talking with the person you are looking for? The laws were created to protect people from just this kind of abuse.

Again, we don't have all the facts. So let's not undermine each other over this.

I've also dealt with MCM. They were extremely rude. They constantly interrupt, try to twist your words, etc. They also aren't completely educated on the FDCPA.

However, until we get all the facts, let's forestall judgment.

Being rude, raising your voice and/or being argumentative isn't an FDCPA violation.

I couldnt disagree more, ohio....look at the law itself, section 806:

Quote:

Sky,

Let me preface this by saying that I think you're absolutely wonderful. You spend a lot of time here, put in a lot of effort and have helped countless people (including me).

I'm going to disagree with you on this point. Because this was only 1 phone call, I do not believe it constitutes abuse, harassment and certainly not oppression.

Again, that's based on my assumption that this was one phone call and the collector got annoyed with this receptionist who started asking questions and trying to quote the law. Maybe the collector lost his temper a little bit, maybe he raised his voice, but...

Since there was only one phone call, it would be nearly impossible to argue "abuse or harassment" in a court of law.

And where is the provision in the law that covers what you are saying? There is none.

In fact, I guarantee you that the opposite is true. There is no quantity that is required. you can yell at someone once and make them feel abused. Proving it is always the concern, especially without a recording, and we all know that a jury would tend to rule more favorably against a CA if there are many examples of such action, but the law says what the law says, and it says that a collector may not engage in ANY such behavior. It doesnt say "they can only do it once, after that it becomes abusive".

If a man hits his wife once, is it still abuse? Or does it need to happen more than once before a law has been broken? Abuse takes different forms, but the letter of this law makes no such requirement for multiple times, and the spirit of the law clearly is in protecting consumers from ANY such behavior.

I do thank you sincerely for your kind words, and have nothing but the utmost respect for you and soap. And I am glad that we can have this kind of discussion without anyone getting ugly about it. Its one of the things that make this place work so well when we can have this kind of thread. I know we have differing interpretations here, but its great to be on the same team with both of you.

I appreciate your kind words as well :)

The very definition of harass discusses "systematic and/or continual" pestering.
[quote]
Harass: v. systematic and/or continual unwanted and annoying pestering, which often includes threats and demands. This can include lewd or offensive remarks, sexual advances, threatening telephone calls from collection agencies, hassling by police officers, or bringing criminal charges without cause.[/quote]

Where was the continual pestering? Where was the threat? This was ONE phonecall.

And the definition of abuse (when not speaking of physical abuse) implies pretty severe wrong-doing:

Quote: