CA Not Advising They Are Calling To Collect A Debt...Legal?

[niteeyes]

I just received a call from a CA out of OK State trying to collect on a debt that is not mine, but another family member's. The CA's name is Johnson City Collections Bureau, but it came up as PCC ph# 918-528-1024 on my CID. Anyway, the CA advised that I had until the end of business today to pay the debt, and if I didn't she was going to verify my employment. After telling her exactly when she would get her money (lol), I asked why she didn't bother advising that she was calling on a debt, (you know the rest of the spill), and she said she didn't have to give the verbiage that she was calling to collect on a debt. She eventually hung up on me. I thought all collectors had to advise the verbiage, am I wrong? Also, in my state the wife is not responsible for the hubby's debt, so can this CA garnish my wage? Thanks in advance.

[MadinKS]

So, were they calling about your husband's debt? Did you say you were the spouse? If you did, they might be able to speak to you about his debt. I'm not sure about the spouse thing. Other than the possible loss of the THIRD PARTY COMMUNICATION violation, it sounds like these people want to rack up the violations. I'd send a letter asking for DV, outline all the current violations, and if they want to rack up more violations, to keep them coming and we'll see who's sorry at the end of the business day.

§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c]

(COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

§ 804. Acquisition of location information [15 USC 1692b]

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall --

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;

(3) not communicate with any such person more than once unless requested to do so by such person or unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information;

(4) not communicate by post card;

(5) not use any language or symbol on any envelope or in the contents of any communication effected by the mails or telegram that indicates that the debt collector is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt; and

§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e]

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.

[direred]

Spouse equals consumer in the statute.

(d) For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.

[MadinKS]

Does the spouse have to identify themselves first? Otherwise, how does the CA know who they're talking to?

[niteeyes]

Ok, I just spoke with the OC. This is a debt that originated from a vet where my husband took the dog. My husband signed their contract as being responsible for pymt, wrote the check, and pd in full. We ended up taking the dog to another vet due to the lousy treatment form the first one. My hubby went to the bank and put a stop-pay on the check and wrote an explanation as to why. This is his account, and in the ST. of TN a spouse is not responsible for the others bills. I didn't sign anything stating I was responsible for the bill. I did not enter a contractual agreement with anyone. It's my hubby's bank acct. as we have sepertae accts. What I am afraid of is that they are going to try to garnish my wage. The CA told me if I didn't pay by CC by the end of today they would verify my employment and then sue me. This can't be legal, can it? By the way, if any of my "L's" are missing, I'm sorry, it sticks sometimes.

[niteeyes]

Hey, thanks a lot madinKS!

[MadinKS]

What I am afraid of is that they are going to try to garnish my wage. The CA told me if I didn't pay by CC by the end of today they would verify my employment and then sue me. This can't be legal, can it?

Sounds to me like they're blowin' smoke. If you are that concerned by it, call and get a free consultation w/a local consumer law attorney and ask if that's possible. I don't know the law in TN (other than the SHOTGUN statute) so it would be in your best interest to call a lawyer or talk to the TN Attorney General's office, and if they say that can't do that, then go ahead and find out how to file a complaint against the CA for the abuse. Add the other violations in there too. Good luck.