Can a CA call my bank for information?

[cskuttler]

I had a call from a CA (CCS) who told me that they had accessed my public records and from public records they knew I had a checking account. They even told me the name of my Credit Union. I would not give them any information or agree to their terms - the next morning the CA called me back and told me he had called my credit union and talked to the loan officer to see if I had taken out a loan lately. I immediately called the credit union and sure enough the CA had called them! Can they do this? Is it legal?

[timbercreektech]

Do you have a judgment against you for this collection?

[direred]

Generally, this would fall under the third-party rule.

[cskuttler]

No judgement - just several calls from this CA - I ask for a DV over the phone and for CCS address to send the proper letter requesting this but no one (and I did talk to several different people from CCS) and no one would give their address to me.

[unusualsuspect]

Did you acquire a loan recently? If you did, then it'll be on your credit report.

Call the credit union's executive office and let them know that one of thier employees disclosed account info about you. That's a major NCUA violation without a court order. It may even violate state law too.

Get a copy of your credit report-- CCS address is on there. Send a DV letter to them immediately.

Change banks too. Don't apply for any loans with the new bank.

[onthedot]

How did you find out they called the bank in the first place?

[cskuttler]

The CA called me back the next morning and told me they had contacted my credit union and spoke to the loan officer - I than called the credit union to confirm this. The credit union told me some guy had called but could not remember his name and he did ask if I had taken out a loan.

[direred]

( 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.

[LadynRed]

Asking the CU employee if you'd taken out a loan is NOT 3rd party disclosure UNLESS the CA discussed your DEBT with that CU employee. While its still stupid of that employee to do so, I don't think he broke any laws in answering the question.

The CA is pushing your buttons - and it's working. Checking accounts are NOT public record, so that was a lie. There are tons of databases out there for CA's to access where they might have found your CU/bank. On the other hand, if you ever paid the OC with a check it wouldn't be hard for a CA to call the bank connected with that check.

[direred]

No -- the communication only needs to be "in connection with the collection of any debt." It doesn't need to be about the debt specifically.

From Horkey v. J.V.D.B (in this case, Horkey said she couldn't take collection calls at work, the CA called back up and verbally abused a coworker of Horkey's) (emphasis added):

"The district court denied summary judgment in Horkey’s favor as to § 1692c( because it found that there was no evidence that Romero discussed Horkey’s debt with Scholes; i.e., in the district court’s estimation, Romero’s call to Scholes was not “in connection with any debt” and was thus not actionable under § 1692c(.2 Instead, reasoned the court below, Romero’s conversation with Scholes “was merely limited to inquiring as to [Horkey’s] whereabouts and entailed the use of inappropriate, profane language.” Nonetheless, the district court denied J.V.D.B.’s motion for attorney’s fees as to this issue because it reasoned that the message Romero left with Scholes “could be construed as sort of in context relating to” the debt that Romero was attempting to collect from Horkey. This is a generous assessment of the foul conversation Romero had with Scholes. But because all of the evidence points to the conclusion that Romero’s only reason for calling Horkey’s workplace was to collect a debt, we share the district court’s assessment of the situation insofar as it held that a reasonable lawyer could have argued from these facts that Romero’s abusive conversation with Scholes was in connection with a debt and therefore triggered liability under § 1692c(."

[Optimus_SubPrime]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the FTC Staff Commentary would seem to indicate this might be allowed, so long as no mention of the debt is made:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm

Section 803(2) defines "communication" as the "conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium."

1. General. The definition includes oral and written transmission of messages which refer to a debt.

2. Exclusions. The term does not include formal legal action (e.g., filing of a lawsuit or other petition/pleadings with a court; service of a complaint or other legal papers in connection with a lawsuit, or activities directly related to such service). Similarly, it does not include a notice that is required by law as a prerequisite to enforcing a contractual obligation between creditor and debtor, by judicial or nonjudicial legal process.

The term does not include situations in which the debt collector does not convey information regarding the debt, such as:

* A request to a third party for a consumer to return a telephone call to the debt collector, if the debt collector does not refer to the debt or the caller's status as (or affiliation with) a debt collector.

* A request to a third party for information about the consumer's assets, if the debt collector does not reveal the existence of a debt.

However, the answer here depends on the collector's conduct during the call. It's hard to imagine the collector calling and saying, "Hi, my name is Bob Smith, and I want to know if cskuttler has taken out a loan recently." What kind of credit union gives out information about their members' financial dealings to any stranger who calls?

I'd want to call that loan officer back and ask him:

a) to send me a copy of the CU's privacy policy,

who the caller identified himself as,

c) what purpose did he say his call was regarding?

d) to immediately fill out a notarized statement of his recollection of the call and his own actions related to it

I would enlist the aid of the manager if the loan officer proves reluctant.

If the collector pretended he was calling under some other guise than collecting a debt, he is guilty not only of violating the FDCPA 1692e, but of pretexting, a federal crime under the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act with criminal penalties:

Whoever knowingly and intentionally violates, or knowingly and intentionally attempts to violate, section 6821 of this title shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

(On edit: Since pretexting here would also be an FDCPA violation, the title 18 fine in this case would be between $10,000 and $20,000, depending on whether he was charged as an organization or an individual. )

[zowie]

I am sorry but when i call on one of my accounts they will not talk to me unless i verify my identity, name, address, ss# etc. Makes no difference if it is bank accounts, cc or whatever. How can someone call and ask regarding a loan if it isn't their account? That is against the law for the bank, cc company, cu to give that information out.

[direred]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the FTC Staff Commentary would seem to indicate this might be allowed, so long as no mention of the debt is made.

Case law trumps the FTC on this one.

Besides, they could then call your friends every day and ask how things were going, you know?

I should add that Horkey was an appeals court case. JVDB appealed to the US Supreme court and was denied cert. It rarely gets better than that case-law wise.

It's also a very funny ruling (in that dry court of appeals way).

[Silver1]

Given that, if the law-firm-acting-as-CA calls your co-workers repeatedly and gives them their contact information, insisting they get the message to the person they're seeking so that the person can call THEM back - since they were truthful about who they were and didn't make up some reason why they were calling (they just didn't say) , pretexting wouldn't apply, I guess.

But how about repeated "locating" phone calls to coworkers at place of employment where they state they are a law firm seeking Silver, here's our number, she needs to call us immediately - but they already had that contact information, which could be proven with a CMRRR letter dated one year ago plus a more recent CMRRR letter?

They didn't explicitly lie about the reason for the call, just said they were a law firm. They didn't use foul language though they did call repeatedly and called place of employment AFTER they already had my contact information.

( 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.

I documented everything and e-mailed the CA with a written account of what happened and demanded they C&D. They e-mailed back and apologized for it. (Weird.) Think I got 'em?

[Optimus_SubPrime]

But how about repeated "locating" phone calls to coworkers at place of employment

If they've already contacted you, and you've responded with a C&D, then they know where you are, and "location" calls are deceptive. (Pretexting would only apply under the GLB Act if they deceived a financial institution.)

Think I got 'em?

Yes.

Case law trumps the FTC on this one.

Well, I know I wouldn't want to try to defend it.

[direred]

They didn't explicitly lie about the reason for the call, just said they were a law firm. They didn't use foul language though they did call repeatedly and called place of employment AFTER they already had my contact information.

If they had your address and your phone number and/or your place of employment, they had your location information and therefore had NO reason to contact a third party.

ETA: note that "location information" IS defined in the FDCPA.