Jump to content

T-Mobile Posing As Collection Agency. Third party question


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, this is a follow-up to an on-going discussion found here:


I notice that when I was reading my text of the FDCPA that I downloaded from this site:


I cam accross this:


Section 1692c provides debtors the "extremely important protection" of prohibiting

debt collectors from contacting third parties, including a debtor's employer, relatives (other than

the debtor's spouse), friends or neighbors, for any purpose other than obtaining "location

information." See also S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 4, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N.

1695, 1698-99. There are a few highly regulated exceptions where the debtor consents, a court has

granted permission or to effect a post-judgment judicial remedy. § 1692c; F.T.C. Official Staff

Commentary § 805(B), 53 Fed. Reg. 50104; S. Rep. No. 382 , at 4. As stated by the Senate,

"uch contacts are not legitimate collection practices and result in serious invasions of privacy, as

well as loss of job." Id. Debt collectors cannot communicate a consumer's personal affairs to third

persons". Id.

Contacts with the consumer's relatives, other than the spouse, violate the FDCPA.

West v. Costen, supra, 558 F.Supp. 564 (W.D.Va. 1983). Leaving a message on an answering

machine or voice mail system may result in an illegal third party communication if it is foreseeable

that a third party with whom the collector could not communicate directly would access the device

or system. Chlanda v. Wymard, C-3-93-321, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14394 (S.D.Ohio 1995). See

Committe v. Dennis Reimer Co., L.P.A., 150 F.R.D. 495 (D.Vt. 1993).

The section is violated by any communication to a third party, even if the debt is not

expressly referenced, other than one that strictly complies with the provision allowing location

information to be gathered. Thus, a message left with a neighbor for the debtor to call regarding

some urgent matter is illegal. West v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 642 (W.D. N.C.

1998); Shaver v. Trauner, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19648 (C.D.Ill., Jul. 31, 1998) (class and

adoption of denial of motion to dismiss), 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19647 (C.D.Ill., May 29, 1998)

(Magistrate Judge's denial of motion to dismiss).

Now I want to get some feedback because, there is an account that we are paying off to T-Mobile but the debt is addressed to my Mother CaroXX. The phone contract was purchased with her SSN and information. Now when the CA contacted us originally they asked for her but she referred them to me and I discussed the debt with them. All of the payments made to the account came from my credit card since I paid all the bills on this account.

Now with that being said, I want to know if 1. Do they fall under this liability for talking and discussing the debt with me? Since I didn't know this until recently. Based on what was given above, they can only talk to the spouse and not the son.

2. Does me paying on this account authorize them to discuss it with me, even though it is in my Mom's name. Would like feedback on this because this seems to be intruiging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure that T-Mobile collection division is not contacting you? If so, then they are still the original creditor and the FDCPA doesn't apply.

Que-Hi Kristy. (correct me if that isn't your name). I am positive that it isn't T-Mobile Collection Division contacting me. The CA is Sunrise CA. So what do you think about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.