Global Busted or am I just wrong?

[CloudX]

Yesterday I received a call for the first time from Global Collections. I had found they were the one who had my Cap one collections. So being in Texas I immediantly sent them a DV. They have yet to respond until the call yesterday. I told the lady that I have asked for no phone calls and have disputed the debt. Then hung up on them. Again today I get another call. I was in a meeting so couldnt pick up. I decided to call. A lady picked up and already had my file ready. Im guessing by phone.

Me: Which company is this (already knowing from teh number on caller id, google rocks)

Her: Global.

Me: Maam, like I told said yesterday I sent a cease and dissest letter for all phone calls and a dispute letter.

Her: Well sir, CD only exist for employement, we can still call you once a day. Also the debt is a year old so a dispute doesnt apply.

Me: O'REALY ? I said you might want to check Texas laws because I can dispute at any time.

Her:I am going to ask my supervisor about this.

About 10 seconds later.....

Her: Ok there are things you can do in texas, but I need you to hold while I see what I can do for you.

Me: Maam, i have been nice enough to give enough of my time.

Her: Ok well ill look into it and call you again until this is resolved.

Me: Well I will consider that harrasement, which is my right.

Her: Well then sir pay your bills as is your right

Hangs up on me.

I didnt get this on tape, so no grounds for a lawsuit or anything. But Im thinking that a letter to the OC and BBB and CRAs is in order... What do you guys think?

Thanks

CloudX

[lovebug5]

Here's your issue: You have absolutely nothing documented and you have no proof of the context of your phone call with her. You're going to enter into a he said/she said situation, which won't necessarily help you win your battle IMO. I'd ignore the calls and send a nice little letter to this CA, citing specific TX statues and move forward from there.

[CloudX]

Here's your issue: You have absolutely nothing documented and you have no proof of the context of your phone call with her. You're going to enter into a he said/she said situation, which won't necessarily help you win your battle IMO. I'd ignore the calls and send a nice little letter to this CA, citing specific TX statues and move forward from there.

Is a copy of my cell phone bill showing the calls any help? I dont want to take them to court or anything, just get the OC and BBB on them

[lovebug5]

Is a copy of my cell phone bill showing the calls any help? I dont want to take them to court or anything, just get the OC and BBB on them

The OC isn't going to do much of anything, IMO. If you're going to file consumer complaints, file them with the BBB/AG's/FTC. Before copying over your cell bill to include, I'd make sure that your letters were written properly and that you're citing proper law.

[CloudX]

The OC isn't going to do much of anything, IMO. If you're going to file consumer complaints, file them with the BBB/AG's/FTC. Before copying over your cell bill to include, I'd make sure that your letters were written properly and that you're citing proper law.

you have a point...oh well, making a collections lady get all flustered I guess is fun enough as it is lol

I think it is almost time for my second DV to them;)

[flycouture]

Violating the c& d can be used as leverage. You phone records are valuable to show that they called. It aslo matters what type of c&d you sent. Was it a full or partial. The one I use says no calls to me period, no automated no nothing. Your state may have laws on violating c & d as mine does. A letter to the bbb and the ag would be my next step. Did you send you c&d certified mail?

[merkurfan]

There is no law that says a CD limited to phone calls to anyplace holds water. It's either they can call and write, or a complete FOAD.

You can tell them not to call, but she is right. She is only barred by law from calling your employment and the time limitations placed on them in the FDCPA.

[CloudX]

Violating the c& d can be used as leverage. You phone records are valuable to show that they called. It aslo matters what type of c&d you sent. Was it a full or partial. The one I use says no calls to me period, no automated no nothing. Your state may have laws on violating c & d as mine does. A letter to the bbb and the ag would be my next step. Did you send you c&d certified mail?

This is what I had sent to them, certified mail as well:

I would like to formally ascertain, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices. I do not consent to telephone contact with your company now or in the future. If your offices attempt telephone communication, including but not limited to computer generated calls, it will be perceived as deliberate and intentional harassment and will be recorded as such.

All future communications must be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by the United States Postal Service.

[CloudX]

There is no law that says a CD limited to phone calls to anyplace holds water. It's either they can call and write, or a complete FOAD.

You can tell them not to call, but she is right. She is only barred by law from calling your employment and the time limitations placed on them in the FDCPA.

I didnt realize this....

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

If they are calling your cell phone, you DO have the right to demand they not do so at any time (similar to the "do not call at work" restriction)...it too must be in writing and sent CMRRR.

Of course, they may continue to call anyway.

And, if your cell phone is your only phone and/or if that is the number you gave the original creditor as your contact number then I'd consider it very likely that they'll continue to call you there.

You may well have a decent court case if they do and if you take it that far but I have a feeling that "cell phone" restriction is goiong to go away soon simply because technonogy and society has changed so much since the $1.00/minute cell phone age of the 1980s!

[gator944]

I also thought they had to cease all collection activity until the account is validated. Forgive me if I'm wrong. I still getting ramped up on the processes.

[flycouture]

There is no law that says a CD limited to phone calls to anyplace holds water. It's either they can call and write, or a complete FOAD.

You can tell them not to call, but she is right. She is only barred by law from calling your employment and the time limitations placed on them in the FDCPA.

I am working with the ag now against bay area credit for violating my cease and desist request. They called me everyday for over a month and asked for paymnet. They claimed they didn't have my letter(lies) and they never validated the debt. It was limited for I requested that I be contacted on by USPS. I have a call log of all calls as well as a ltter from AT&T annoyance call bureau showing everytime they called me. I was told I have a very strong case and a hearing is to follow because Act 299 of 1980 was violated. It is also a fdcpa to call if they have not sent dv and continue to call. Wish me luck cause I'm looking to settle b4 the hearing.

M.C.L. § 445.253. Cease and desist order; hearing, failure to comply

Sec. 3. (1) The attorney general may order a regulated person to cease and desist from violating this act.

(2) A regulated person ordered to cease and desist is entitled to a hearing before the appropriate officer as determined by the attorney general if he or she files a written request within 30 days after the effective date of the order.

(3) If a regulated person fails to comply with a cease and desist order issued pursuant to this act, the attorney general may commence an action in the circuit court for Ingham county or in a circuit court for a county where the person is doing business, to enjoin violations of the cease and desist order or to seek enforcement of a previously issued order. The court may impose a

fine or not more than $500.00 for each violation of the cease and desist order.

[Flyingifr]

Originally Posted by merkurfan View Post

There is no law that says a CD limited to phone calls to anyplace holds water. It's either they can call and write, or a complete FOAD.

You can tell them not to call, but she is right. She is only barred by law from calling your employment and the time limitations placed on them in the FDCPA.

I didnt realize this....

Neither did anyone else, including the FTC or District Courts in Connecticut, Texas, California, Georgia and Kentucky, among others.

Let's look at the entire section of the Statute. FDCPA prohibits communication with consumers at any unusual time or place or at a time or place known to be or should have known by the collector to be inconvenient. Since the Act, other than stating the collector may assume 8AM to 9PM is convenient (unless told otherwise) does not clarify this further, let's see what teh Courts and FTC have said:

Austin v Great Lakes Collection Bureau, Inc 834 F Supp 557 (D Conn) ruled that repeated calls to a consumer's place of employment after the collector had been asked to cease, was a violation

United States v Universal Collection Bureau, Inc. Clearinghouse No. 36,337 (S.D. N.Y. 1981) (consent decree) - collector agreed not to phone consumer at inconvenient times or places....

Killion v Professional Business Serv., Inc. Clearinghouse No. 42,801, 21 Clearinghouse Rev. Ed. 1108 (E.D., Ky 1987) - (consent decree) - collector agreed not to contact consumer at the address or phone number of a third party....

The fact is that the word "inconvenient" places on the collector the burden of either knowing or inquiring as to the "convenience" of the communication, and the consumer's simple statement that the time or place is "inconvenient" is a trump card the collector cannot overcome. All the rest is simply window dressing. Therefore, the statement "It is inconvenient for me to receive telephone calls about this matter at any time or any place" is sufficient to notify the collector that any phone call to any location at any time is a FDCPA violation.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

The fact is that the word "inconvenient" places on the collector the burden of either knowing or inquiring as to the "convenience" of the communication, and the consumer's simple statement that the time or place is "inconvenient" is a trump card the collector cannot overcome. All the rest is simply window dressing. Therefore, the statement "It is inconvenient for me to receive telephone calls about this matter at any time or any place" is sufficient to notify the collector that any phone call to any location at any time is a FDCPA violation.

This has been discussed many times here, including quite recently, and while the limited C&D is very appealing to consumers; it just doesn't exist in the law.

State laws vary and certainly, judges in small claims/county/state courts can make all kinds of decisions (logical or otherwise) and I claim no special knowledge of the laws that may exist in the OP’s state. However, there is nothing in the FDCPA that equates to a “limited C&D” - that concept is based on assumptions, a little bit of logic and a lot of wishful thinking.

The idea that a consumer can claim that all telephone contact at any place and at any time is “inconvenient” and is therefore an insurmountable "trump card" is very wishful thinking; at least as far as federal law goes.

Special cases are just that – special. For example, if a person works third shift then obviously, calling between the assumed convenient times of 8AM-9PM is NOT convenient but that does not mean that the consumer in that situation can just claim that calling at any time is inconvenient (that fact that the consumer’s “convenient” time may not be convenient for the CA is the CA’s problem!).

Even were the concept of a limited C&D a viable concept, the only way to enforce such a restriction is to sue – while doing so may make a consumer feel better, going to court is often not a great option for a consumer (no matter how strong an attorney tells you your case is).

The one best way to not talk to a collector on the phone if you don’t want to talk to them – the one way that ALWAYS works is to just not answer the d** phone.

[gator944]

I'm not as familiar with credit laws as all of you here, but I know telephone. It is absolutely illegal for ANYONE to call your house after being asked not to. The FCC is the governing body of that nice little rule and the federally regulated local exchange carriers (your local phone company) will bend over backwards to help with monitoring your phone line, tracking down the people calling who aren't supposed to, and prosecuting them.

The written request part is so that you have substantiated proof of your request that they don't call you. I've read somewhere that a few people have recorded their request to the caller in question and those recordings held up as proof of notification.

The FDCPA and FCRA don't have calling your home written into any of their legislation because they would only be duplicating statutes already in place by the FCC. These acts do address calls to your place of employment because there is no way for the FCC to stop someone from telephonically harrassing them through a phone service not owned by that individual.

I'll be happy to clarify if I wasn't clear enough.

[debtorshusband]

Hi gator944,

You're clear enough, but can you provide the proof, as in citing the FCC regulation or law?

I was one of those who debated this with Robert in the recent thread he mentioned, and although I found some tidbits that supported the "limited C&D", I admit it wasn't proof, and it didn't convince Robert. And while his arguments haven't totally convinced me either, I understand his argument, and I'm willing to admit that he may be right. I would love to be able to cite an FCC law or regulation.

In the meantime, in practice I do as Robert advises: I don't answer the phone. However, I will say that I have requested written communication only, and most collectors have honored the request, so I still say it doesn't hurt to ask, even if it's not legally enforceable.

DH

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

gator944,

I would go further than debtorshusband and ask if you can provide any recent examples of where CAs, pursuing their normal course of business, have been prosecuted/pursued by the FCC for violations of this/these law(s)?

I'm not saying you are wrong but it seems very odd to me, given the amount of business conducted over the phone in this country every day and the number of calls almost everyone receives that they probably would prefer not to receive.

If these laws exist and are being enforced, why do we need "do not call lists" for telemarketers and the like?

If the law(s) exist and aren't being enforced; why aren't they being enforced?

It would seem consumers could bring the entire collection industry to a virtual standstill with this concept.

[CloudX]

Well even though she threaten to call me today, they have not, so looks like they were yet again resulting to pitty threats. I wonder if you play it at the angle that becuase you are calling my cell phone while I am at work, it is inconvient for me and also my employer frowns on any personal calls.

From what I have read here, even its LAW, teh CAs will do whatever they want.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

You DO have the right to request they not call you at work and/or to not call you on your cell phone and if they do so after youv'e so informed them (in writing CMRRR) then they are in violation of the FDCPA based on both the statutes and case law.

As you say, however, some CAs will do whatever they want but as I said in an earlier post, you ALWAYS have the option of not answering their call when they call or of hanging up immediately if you happen to pick up the call before realizing the call is from them. :

[CloudX]

You DO have the right to request they not call you at work and/or to not call you on your cell phone and if they do so after youv'e so informed them (in writing CMRRR) then they are in violation of the FDCPA based on both the statutes and case law.

As you say, however, some CAs will do whatever they want but as I said in an earlier post, you ALWAYS have the option of not answering their call when they call or of hanging up immediately if you happen to pick up the call before realizing the call is from them. :

Its just annoying, but a part of the process I guess.... I have no intrest of taking things to court... I feel my time is worth more than the hassles of setting up a case. Thats just me tho. However if they really go out of the way to tick me off, then Ill come at them both arms swinging. I just wanted to show them whos in CONTROL. Lol oh well I digress

[gator944]

This is the first revision to the Telecommunications Act of 1934. There is much more to it including $50,000.00 fines per violation and prison time for violators. You must advise the caller that YOU consider further calls from them as harassment. According to the government, harassment is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, I believe this only applies to interstate or international calls. Intrastate calls are handle by state statutes. I'm not an attorney, so please do your research before throwing any stones.

I'm now trying to dig up some Federal Case Law on this.

SEC. 502. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof:

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) in interstate or foreign communications--

`(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--

`(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and

`(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other

communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,

or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or

harass another person;

`( by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--

`(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and

`(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other

communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that

the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of

age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication

placed the call or initiated the communication;

`© makes a telephone call or utilizes a

telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or

communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and

with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person

at the called number or who receives the communications;

`(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly

or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person

at the called number; or

`(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly

initiates communication with a telecommunications device,

during which conversation or communication ensues, solely

to harass any person at the called number or who receives

the communication; or

`(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under

his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph

(1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned

not more than two years, or both.'

There is much more, but you get the jist.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

As I read this I see very little that could be applied to a CA or any other business, at least, not easily..

Harassment is not in the eye (or ear) of the beholder; harassment is a legal term that would take a jury or a judge to decide if the actions of a business or individual actually constituted harassment or not.

I suspect that before a CA (or any other business) could be successfully prosecuted, the actions of the CA would have to be fairly extreme and VERY well documented. I also note that “intent” plays a large part in this and intent can be a very difficult thing to substantiate.

I’d say there are CAs (and more specifically, individual employees of collection agencies) that could and probably should be charged under this statute but I still think proving it in court would be quite difficult….were it not so, consumers would never need to use the FDCPA for protection; all they would have to do is claim harassment and they truly could almost shut down the collection industry.

[debtorshusband]

I was kind of waiting for Robert to reply for himself, and now he has, and pretty much as I expected he would.

And I hate to say it, but I have to agree with him. A lot of the wording is very similar to the FDCPA: you have to argue that the CA's calls are harassment because you told them phone calls would be considered harassment. And while I'd love it if the courts agreed, I can see it could go either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like the "limited C&d" to be valid with legal force, but as Robert can't be expected to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies on my side of the argument. I'd like to find law that says "It's against the law for a CA to call a consumer if they've been notifed to communicate in writing only," but I haven't been able to find it yet, and this excerpt from the Telecommunications Act doesn't make the grade either.

However, I still think it doesn't hurt to request it; the CA might comply. And if it came to a lawsuit, I would add the claim to any other issues. Robert has just taken away my confidence that the claim would upheld.

DH

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I was kind of waiting for Robert to reply for himself, and now he has, and pretty much as I expected he would.

And I hate to say it, but I have to agree with him. A lot of the wording is very similar to the FDCPA: you have to argue that the CA's calls are harassment because you told them phone calls would be considered harassment. And while I'd love it if the courts agreed, I can see it could go either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like the "limited C&d" to be valid with legal force, but as Robert can't be expected to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies on my side of the argument. I'd like to find law that says "It's against the law for a CA to call a consumer if they've been notifed to communicate in writing only," but I haven't been able to find it yet, and this excerpt from the Telecommunications Act doesn't make the grade either.

However, I still think it doesn't hurt to request it; the CA might comply. And if it came to a lawsuit, I would add the claim to any other issues. Robert has just taken away my confidence that the claim would upheld.

DH

Gee…I would hope that agreeing with me wouldn’t be all that painful!!!

By the way, I’ve never said “don’t ask”…I’ve always advised to ask, in a DV, that all further communication be done in writing, etc., etc. In fact, if you look at my recent post (where I posted the DV letter I was getting ready to send out) about my own situation regarding a totally bogus medical debt, you’ll see that I asked for all communication to be in writing.

All I’ve said is that I don’t really expect a CA to follow the request nor do I think there is law to support their failure to follow the request being a violation of FDCPA (understand I’m not referring to the “stay” of all communication until validation when the dispute is “timely”).

[Amerikaner83]

That's why you inform them that you RECORD all phone converstions. That'll either get them to stop calling or set you up for some violations on their end...