CA won't stop calling me at work

[mkr_00]

What can I do to get the collection agency to stop calling me at work. That drives me crazy. I want them to stop. Where do I start?

Keith

[Methuss]

You must send a cease and desist letter to the CA telling them that they are not permitted to contact you by phone either at work or at home. In that letter tell them that if they continue, you will be recording every call.

Once they get the letter (sent by certified mail so you have proof of delivery) each call is a violation of the FDCPA and you may sue for $1000 in statutory damages + attorney fees and costs. You may also sue for actual damages including for emotional distress, and for damaging your reputation with your employer. You'll have to see a doctor to document any stress related problems you may be experiencing.

[LadynRed]

With a cease and desist letter telling them that you are not allowed personal calls at work and that they are to immediately cease ALL calls to your place of employment.

Per FDCPA:

§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection

(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER

GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt..

(3) at the consumers place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumers employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication

[Methuss]

heh. beat ya to it, Lady.

Guess I pounce faster. rofl.

[codename_fortyseven]

I am an advocate of never telling a CA you are going to record.

At any rate, I prefer to paraphrase the statute.

"Dear idiot,

It is inconvienent for you to contact me via phone at any time or any place, and my employer doesn't permit phone calls at work.

-YOU, unsigned"

Did they talk to any co-workers? Any 3rd party disclosures?

[Methuss]

The honest truth is that telling them you are going to record does no harm and only helps. Most of the time the simple realization that their misbehavior could be on tape is enough to halt the calls. For those stupid enough to continue afterwards, it places an iron-clad stamp on the recordings as admissable as evidence...there is no wiggle room since you have a CMRRR card showing they signed for the letter and received notice in writing.

I see a little thing also, 47, that I've gone rounds with before. You sign your letters. I've been to court enough time against these kinds of jerks to know that if a letter is unsigned you have a 70% chance that the judge will throw it out. If it isn't signed, it is generally not going to stand up to legal scrutiny. If you are worried about them "lifting" your signature, use red glitter gel pens to sign. The red ink does not photocopy well, if at all. And the glitter prevents scanners from getting a clear image and makes it so ink-jet printers can't replicate it even if they do manage to get a partial scan. This works best if you send your letters on light-green "ledger paper." (Dad was in the Secret Service...anti-counterfeiting.)

[codename_fortyseven]

I'll have to write that down about the whole lifting of signatures...with my new red glitter pen . Cool stuff, indeed.

As far of recroding, I am of the mindset that violations are the best way to make a CA go away. Violations give you leverage, can cost money, and can draw unwanted attention. Collectors violate over the phone all day long, sinec they figure you in court it would be your word against theirs, and they figure most people don't record or can't record, or maybe they have to consent to it or something.

I guess it all depends on what your overall goal is. If you just want them to stop calling, yeah, send the letter and tell them you are recording. If you want to make them go away permanently, don't tell them you are recording and catch them saying something dumb and illegal. Send copies to your favorite consumer atty, FTC, elected officials, TV, Newspapers, Sec of State, etc...

Me personally, I don't want to halt the calls. Call me a jackass, talk about my mom, threaten to bread and fry my goldfish, tell me how you are going to garnish my wages if I live in NC, etc... Then explain yourself to the line of government agencies outside your compliance officer's door.

As far as the tapes being admissable, sue in Federal, and the tapes are 100% admissable in all 50 states.

As far as YOU the consumer getting in hot water for wiretapping, that is only a concern in 10 states. There are only 10 real two party states. Illinois case law says it is a one party state for consumers, so that isn't an issue. MD is a two party state, but ignorance of the recording law is actually a legit defense. It is only illegal to record there if you actually know it is illegal to do so.

Again, you WANT provable violations, since you can gain leverage over the CA's and come to an agreeable settlement that includes deletion, never reselling the debt, a liquidated damages clause, and a modest payout for my troubles.

[admin]

As far of recroding, I am of the mindset that violations are the best way to make a CA go away. Violations give you leverage, can cost money, and can draw unwanted attention. Collectors violate over the phone all day long, sinec they figure you in court it would be your word against theirs, and they figure most people don't record or can't record, or maybe they have to consent to it or something.

Respectfully, I believe you are seriously mistaken and it is bad practice to keep recommending this, as has been pointed out numerous times.

[blacksurfer]

In California, if you tell the other person the call is being tape and give him/her a chance to hang up, then it's legal.

I say this: "I am recording this call, if you do not want to be recorded, please hang up".

[IHateCAs]

As far of recroding, I am of the mindset that violations are the best way to make a CA go away. Violations give you leverage, can cost money, and can draw unwanted attention. Collectors violate over the phone all day long, sinec they figure you in court it would be your word against theirs, and they figure most people don't record or can't record, or maybe they have to consent to it or something.

Respectfully, I believe you are seriously mistaken and it is bad practice to keep recommending this, as has been pointed out numerous times.

Why is it bad practice to record phone calls?

[pryan67]

The honest truth is that telling them you are going to record does no harm and only helps. Most of the time the simple realization that their misbehavior could be on tape is enough to halt the calls. For those stupid enough to continue afterwards, it places an iron-clad stamp on the recordings as admissable as evidence...there is no wiggle room since you have a CMRRR card showing they signed for the letter and received notice in writing.

I see a little thing also, 47, that I've gone rounds with before. You sign your letters. I've been to court enough time against these kinds of jerks to know that if a letter is unsigned you have a 70% chance that the judge will throw it out. If it isn't signed, it is generally not going to stand up to legal scrutiny. If you are worried about them "lifting" your signature, use red glitter gel pens to sign. The red ink does not photocopy well, if at all. And the glitter prevents scanners from getting a clear image and makes it so ink-jet printers can't replicate it even if they do manage to get a partial scan. This works best if you send your letters on light-green "ledger paper." (Dad was in the Secret Service...anti-counterfeiting.)

I have to disagree with signing letters...

where is it written that you must sign letters?

are the statements that a CA might produce signed?

are letters from the CRA or CA signed?

I would NOT sign a letter to a CA EVER...there's no reason to...and if a judge tosses it out, then he'd be forced to toss out ALL of the CA's "evidence" as well...but I've NEVER seen a judge toss something based upon that

[pryan67]

As far of recroding, I am of the mindset that violations are the best way to make a CA go away. Violations give you leverage, can cost money, and can draw unwanted attention. Collectors violate over the phone all day long, sinec they figure you in court it would be your word against theirs, and they figure most people don't record or can't record, or maybe they have to consent to it or something.

Respectfully, I believe you are seriously mistaken and it is bad practice to keep recommending this, as has been pointed out numerous times.

Why is it bad practice to record phone calls?

because in many states it's illegal...

and in Illinois, it is NOT a one party state for consumers...unless you believe a crime is about to be commited...but there is another POSSIBLE loophole

[DocDon]

I have to disagree with signing letters...

where is it written that you must sign letters?

A signature is what makes a document 'legal'.

are the statements that a CA might produce signed?

That's different. The documents come from the creditor, and when you agreed to the terms, you did an electronic signature - the part that says "by clicking here I agree...."

With 'account stated', all they have to do is show you've been making charges and payments to the account (each receipt carrying your signature that you "agree to the terms and conditions of your cardholder agreement" by the way).

are letters from the CRA or CA signed?

Again, not all circumstances require a signature. Your credit reports aren't signed... nor are your DV responses, but if they sue you, rest assured there will be signatures all over to fulfill legal requirements.

I would NOT sign a letter to a CA EVER...there's no reason to...and if a judge tosses it out, then he'd be forced to toss out ALL of the CA's "evidence" as well...but I've NEVER seen a judge toss something based upon that

Again, do a search on "account stated".

[codename_fortyseven]

pryan,

in 11 states recording calls is illegal. In the majority of the country and under federal rules recordings are completely legal and admissable. These 11 states are the *ONLY* places you need be concerned about getting in legal trouble for recording a call.

Getting the recordings admitted as evidence may or may not be tougher depending on the state. All the more reason to get a good consumer atty that will take it to Federal at no cost to you. Transcripts should be admitted without issue.

Private investigators seem to think that it is a one party state for consumers

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html

<Illinois is, by _statute_ a two party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning concensus is that one-party consenual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.>

No, I don't have the exact cases right in front of me, and besides even working off the "crime about to be comitted" logic, CA's are known to regularly violate the law, so you could reasonably have an expectation that a crime is about to be comitted by talking to them on the phone.

[IHateCAs]

I have to disagree with signing letters...

where is it written that you must sign letters?

A signature is what makes a document 'legal'.

are the statements that a CA might produce signed?

That's different. The documents come from the creditor, and when you agreed to the terms, you did an electronic signature - the part that says "by clicking here I agree...."

With 'account stated', all they have to do is show you've been making charges and payments to the account (each receipt carrying your signature that you "agree to the terms and conditions of your cardholder agreement" by the way).

are letters from the CRA or CA signed?

Again, not all circumstances require a signature. Your credit reports aren't signed... nor are your DV responses, but if they sue you, rest assured there will be signatures all over to fulfill legal requirements.

I would NOT sign a letter to a CA EVER...there's no reason to...and if a judge tosses it out, then he'd be forced to toss out ALL of the CA's "evidence" as well...but I've NEVER seen a judge toss something based upon that

Again, do a search on "account stated".

Cutting to the chase.

What is it about an unsigned DV that would make it inadmissable as evidence?

[Methuss]

pryan67,

Illinois is by statute a two party State, but the IL Supreme Court has overruled that under the doctrine of enhanced note-taking. The rational is that some people have 100% recall while others do not, so recording a conversation levels the playing field with those who can recall every detail of a conversation.

As for signing, try a case sometime and see what happens. Businesses are ALLOWED to send unsigned correspondence becuase the business itself is responsible for the actions of it's employees. If you try to submit an unsigned letter of your own as court evidence the CA lawyer is just going to argue that because it is unsigned there is no proof that it was even sent by you, if it was ever sent. I've used that argument on a self-employed lawyer representing a CA and got his letters thrown out. So do what you will, but you have been warned of the consequences.

[DocDon]

http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15879

[codename_fortyseven]

I am going to have my dedicated red glitter gel pen for signing DV's from now on.

[pryan67]

pryan67,

Illinois is by statute a two party State, but the IL Supreme Court has overruled that under the doctrine of enhanced note-taking. The rational is that some people have 100% recall while others do not, so recording a conversation levels the playing field with those who can recall every detail of a conversation.

As for signing, try a case sometime and see what happens. Businesses are ALLOWED to send unsigned correspondence becuase the business itself is responsible for the actions of it's employees. If you try to submit an unsigned letter of your own as court evidence the CA lawyer is just going to argue that because it is unsigned there is no proof that it was even sent by you, if it was ever sent. I've used that argument on a self-employed lawyer representing a CA and got his letters thrown out. So do what you will, but you have been warned of the consequences.

what case was that that the supreme court overuled the law? I'm not familiar with it...

as for trying a case....been there, done that...bought the t-shirt...it was accepted...every time...

[pryan67]

I have to disagree with signing letters...

where is it written that you must sign letters?

A signature is what makes a document 'legal'.

and that law is written where? Do you mean that because your credit card statements aren't signed they're not "legal"? I agree with contracts, etc...those must be signed...and any court documents...but a letter? Nothing in the law requires a signature

are the statements that a CA might produce signed?

That's different. The documents come from the creditor, and when you agreed to the terms, you did an electronic signature - the part that says "by clicking here I agree...."

ah, but what if I didn't apply online? THEN are the statements invalid?

With 'account stated', all they have to do is show you've been making charges and payments to the account (each receipt carrying your signature that you "agree to the terms and conditions of your cardholder agreement" by the way).

are letters from the CRA or CA signed?

Again, not all circumstances require a signature. Your credit reports aren't signed... nor are your DV responses, but if they sue you, rest assured there will be signatures all over to fulfill legal requirements.

but MY letters do NOT need to be signed

I would NOT sign a letter to a CA EVER...there's no reason to...and if a judge tosses it out, then he'd be forced to toss out ALL of the CA's "evidence" as well...but I've NEVER seen a judge toss something based upon that

Again, do a search on "account stated".

I understand about "account stated"...HOWEVER...they MUST show a signature to make it "legal"...according to you...otherwise, I just have to prove that they received my letters...right? "accoutn stated" turned around

[DocDon]

Why are you arguing?

Use the search function above and start digging up archived posts like I'm doing.... there's one thread on this subject with information regarding signatures from an attorney.....

[pryan67]

pryan,

in 11 states recording calls is illegal. In the majority of the country and under federal rules recordings are completely legal and admissable. These 11 states are the *ONLY* places you need be concerned about getting in legal trouble for recording a call.

Getting the recordings admitted as evidence may or may not be tougher depending on the state. All the more reason to get a good consumer atty that will take it to Federal at no cost to you. Transcripts should be admitted without issue.

Private investigators seem to think that it is a one party state for consumers

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html

<Illinois is, by _statute_ a two party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning concensus is that one-party consenual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.>

No, I don't have the exact cases right in front of me, and besides even working off the "crime about to be comitted" logic, CA's are known to regularly violate the law, so you could reasonably have an expectation that a crime is about to be comitted by talking to them on the phone.

I'd agree with the "crime about to be commited", which is why I mentioned it...

also, Illinois specifically excludes VIDEO recording from the statute...so if you were to use a video recorder to record it...it would be legal...to the letter of the law

[pryan67]

Why are you arguing?

Use the search function above and start digging up archived posts like I'm doing.... there's one thread on this subject with information regarding signatures from an attorney.....

not trying to argue...just want to clarify points of law is all...unless and until someone can show me that a signature is REQUIRED of a consumer, I will continue to advocate NOT signing it...

I'll even settle for a transcript of a case where the judge says that an unsigned document is inadmissable from one party, but admissable for the other...

[DocDon]

I didn't intend that to literally mean arguing with me.... I meant why argue points that already have answers in the archives?

This topic has been debated numerous times, and it's all saved in the archives...

[pryan67]

I didn't intend that to literally mean arguing with me.... I meant why argue points that already have answers in the archives?

This topic has been debated numerous times, and it's all saved in the archives...

this is true...I'm a new user here...but not to credit repair...some people here know me I'm sure...and I hadn't searched the archives, since to me it's a VERY simple subject...and in the archives, I haven't found answers other than "you have to sign", which sounds like what CAs tell consumers all the time (in violation of the FDCPA of course)