Jump to content

CA telling lies?


axeslinger80
 Share

Recommended Posts

Found a collection on my CR for an electric bill at an old address from 2005. Called CA (before CIC) and spoke to account supervisor. Asked if I paid the $370 bill, would they delete the account. She said since they had a record in there file of contact with me by phone in 2005, they would not do this. DV'ed the CA and they responded with a copy of their records and told me DV period was up.

My questions are -

1. The name on their account has the wrong middle initial. I have a generational suffix and I know 3 other people with the same name in my area. Will they be able to verify account if they have the wrong middle initial?

2. Its obvious that they are collecting for the Electric company who still owns the debt, should I just PFD electric co.?

3. I NEVER called the CA in 2005. They couldn't possibly have proof of that because of the rules that I have posted below. Can I sue over this?

I appretiate any help. You guys are awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-402: It is a felony to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication have consented. But all-party consent will not make the recording legal if there is a criminal or tortious purpose behind it.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-410.

State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker's consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman's presentation in stranger's home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the best way to tell a CA is lying? Their lips are moving...

I'd suggest you call the electric company and ask for a copy of their records. Give them the old "gee whiz golly...I thought for sure I paid you guys...can you give me the dates so I can check my records...if its really mine I'll be glad to pay you...and, BTW, can you call off the CA?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.