hopelessinghana

How do I stop the calls?

Recommended Posts

I don't think chrismg's link to a Credit Repair Primer helps you with your question, so here's how I see it.

Basically you have two choices:

1. Continue to not answer your phone. Then one of 3 things will happen: they will just keep trying to reach you, they will give up, or they will send you a dunning letter. I think it is likely they will eventually send you a letter.

2. Answer the phone. You didn't provide any background information, so we know nothing about your situation. Maybe this is a wrong number and it's not even you they're looking for. But if it is you they want, tell them you won't discuss the matter over the phone, and they should send their demands in writing.

Once you have received a letter from them (which should advise you of your right to dispute the debt and ask for validation), you can send them a Debt Validation letter, CRRR. They are now required by law to stop calling until they have sent you validation.

In my opinion, that's how you begin. What you do next depends on their response.

Good luck.

DH

Link to post
Share on other sites

DH is correct in his advice, but I do agree with the original reply - read the primer. It will give you a big picture of how to handle your collections. When you have no experience with this stuff, it can seem very overwhelming. But it's important to get the big picture and then start putting the principles to the test. You will get some results quickly. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a phone recorder at Radioshack. Answer the next call while recording. Tell them you dont discuss such things on the phone and to send you something in writing. Confirm only your name and address NOTHING ELSE. "I dont give out financial information over the phone".

I'm assuming they have NOT sent you anything in writing...and you know its NCO from the caller ID.

Then DV them when the letter comes...

"I dispute this alleged debt and demand strict proof thereof. I hereby exercise my right to require debt validation be provided me.

It is inconvenient to contact me by telephone at anytime and any place."

That simple snetence uses the FDCPA law language to forbid them to call you any longer. Give it 10 business days for them to "act on your request" and from then on any CALLS would be a FDCPA violation.

You want them to keep calling though, hope they do and violate, RECORD all calls and then at totally stupid and let the collector violate other FDCPA rules with threats, misinformation, and the usual tactics they love to engage in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is inconvenient to contact me by telephone at anytime and any place."

That simple snetence uses the FDCPA law language to forbid them to call you any longer. Give it 10 business days for them to "act on your request" and from then on any CALLS would be a FDCPA violation.

Bzzzzt! Not accurate. There is no provision in the FDCPA for a limited cease and desist. We have been up and down this road many times now.

The consumer can demand anything. Enforcing the demand is another kettle of fish and this one won't hunt.

This "limited" strategy is dangerous. A number of DB/CA consider it to be a full cease and desist under FDCPA. That means that the DB/CA must decide to choke on their tongue or go file a lawsuit. If the consumer is litigation adverse, I strongly discourage this.

Most DB/CA recognize the limited C&D an internet nonsense and ignore it. I have never heard of a single one that recognized the limited C&D in the sense it was suggested in this thread.

If you want to record calls -- record away. If you want to not answer the phone -- do so. If you want to hang up -- hang up. Just don't think you are solving any problem with a limited cease and desist.

Now, all that being said, the consumer has the right to instruct the DB/CA to not contact them at work if the employer does not allow personal calls -- just do it in writing. Also, the consumer has the right to instruct the DB/CA to not call during their hours of rest -- presumed to be 9pm to 8am local time unless the consumer defines those hours differently. No judge has ever agreed that it is reasonable to restrict calls to all hours of the day.

If the consumer DVs timely (as defined by the Act), the DB/CA must cease collection activity until they respond to the DV. The standard for response to a DV is pretty darn low. If the DV is not timely, there is no required to cease collection activity and the DB/CA has an unlimited amount of time to respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It helps to READ the statute.... FDCPA section 805:

§ 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—

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known

or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the

convenient time for communicating with a consumer

is after 8 o’clock antimeridian and before 9 o’clock

postmeridian, local time at the consumer’s location;

(3) at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector

knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s

employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such

communication.

Direct from the statute: "a time or place known" "to be inconvenient to the consumer".

Once you have, in your DV, informed the creditor that it is INCONVENIENT to contact you BY TELEPHONE at ANY TIME and ANY PLACE, the creditor now KNOWS and any further contact in that manner is a prima-facia VIOLATION of 805(a)(1). Period, end of story. A debt collector MAY NOT.

That is the POINT to including that sentence in your DV, to put an end to the annoying phone harrassment.... OR.... record and log the violations and file suit/countersuit against the collector for his violations.

They are free to contact you IN WRITING, which is how you want it anyway, so there is a record IN WRITING of thier actions.

For your employer:

(3) at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector

knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s

employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such

communication.

But frankly not contacting you any time any place by telephone by definition includes AT WORK.

And there is plenty of caselaw out there on this subject matter, adhere to the specific language in the statute and sue/countersue on the prima-facia violation of the plain language of the statute.

Also remember that in most of the 50 states it is ILLEGAL to contact by telephone during the hours of 9pm to 8am under state law. As well as state laws having similar no phone contact laws on the books. Always read your state laws thoroughly.

Furhter, calls to CELL phones are subject to the TCPA and opens up another front of violations for over agressive collectors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct from the statute: "a time or place known" "to be inconvenient to the consumer".

That dog does not hunt. You are mis-reading and mis-understanding the intent of Congress and the words in the Act.

Please, show me one single FTC Opinion or one single court case that says the consumer has the right to say "no phone calls anytime anywhere anyplace". It does not exist.

And, you ignore my comments about some DB/CA interpreting the limited C&D as a full C&D. Do you wish to get the OP sued?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FDCPA is a plain language statute.... the words mean exactly what they say. Congressional interpretation is irrelevent, the ultimate INTENT of congress is seen in the language of the LAW they wrote.

A Debt collector MAY NOT contact by telephone a consumer when they KNOW it is inconvenient, and the consumer can inform the debt collector WHEN that is.

"It is inconvenient to contact me by telephone at any time and any place."

Now the debt collector KNOWS. I dont care what YOU choose to call it, cease and whatever, the LETTER of the LAW says in plain english precisely what the requirements are of the debt collector in order to obey the law. There is no ambiguity and no debate, section 805(a) could not be more clear or precise.

I'll have to go dig up some caselaw examples of this playing out in actual court for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Wrong.

The concept that a consumer has a right, enforceable by FDCPA, to require a collector to communicate only in writing (commonly called a “limited cease and desist” [which is pretty silly considering that the phrase “cease and desist” isn’t used in the statute in the first place]) is a concept based on equal parts of misreading the act and wishful thinking…it’s an interesting mental exercise but that’s where its usefulness ends.

Neither the act itself, FTC staff opinions nor case law supports the assertion that a consumer can simply claim that all telephone contact at any time and any place is “inconvenient” and therefore, make such contact a violation of the act...were such contact truly "inconvenient" the consumer, in all likelyhood, would not have a telephone in the first place (hence, making any such claim moot)!

Not only does the act not support your opinion but in the case law that exists, judges have ALWAYS determined what is and isn't “inconvenient” based on the consumer’s specific and individual circumstances. If you find any case law to the contrary I'll guarantee you it's from some nobody judge in some nowhere county that has zero meaning outside of the county it was issued in.

Claiming such contact is inconvenient does not make it so (and just to be clear, collector calls aren’t “inconvenient” just because a consumer doesn’t want to receive them).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The FDCPA is a plain language statute.... the words mean exactly what they say. Congressional interpretation is irrelevent, the ultimate INTENT of congress is seen in the language of the LAW they wrote.

A Debt collector MAY NOT contact by telephone a consumer when they KNOW it is inconvenient, and the consumer can inform the debt collector WHEN that is.

"It is inconvenient to contact me by telephone at any time and any place."

Now the debt collector KNOWS. I dont care what YOU choose to call it, cease and whatever, the LETTER of the LAW says in plain english precisely what the requirements are of the debt collector in order to obey the law. There is no ambiguity and no debate, section 805(a) could not be more clear or precise.

I'll have to go dig up some caselaw examples of this playing out in actual court for you.

Personal experience for me is that the "limited C&D" is either ignored entirely or taken by the CA as a complete cease communication. LVNV for one will send no further communication when they receive a DV with a limited C&D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay so I had a CA call my cell phone. they also called my house even though my cc company had only my cell as my only contact number. would any calls to my house be illegal? i had not given them the ok to call my house at any point.

thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
okay so I had a CA call my cell phone. they also called my house even though my cc company had only my cell as my only contact number. would any calls to my house be illegal? i had not given them the ok to call my house at any point.

thoughts?

While I know what you mean, "Illegal" is not really the correct term to use...this is not a criminal matter.

Moving on, they don't need your prior permission to try and call you and nothing wrong with them calling you at home or at work or on your cell phone or at any other number when they know or believe they can reach you or find out how/where to reach you (except as described below).

You have the right, per FDCPA (backed by the threat of a fine for violating the FDCPA) to demand that they not call you at your place of employment (if doing so could place your job in jeopardy) and you can make the same demand that they not call your cell phone (under the assumption that doing so costs you money) - whether a collector will respect the above requests is always up in the air but most will because they don't like being sued.

For the most part, a debtor's home phone is consider "fair game" for a creditor and/or collector to use to try and reach a debtor.

ADDITIONAL:

I should have mentioned that the way to protect/enforce your rights with a collector is by communicating with them (in writing; CMRRR)l usually as part of the Debt Validation process (there is a lot of info about that process here on the site)

Link to post
Share on other sites
okay so I had a CA call my cell phone. they also called my house even though my cc company had only my cell as my only contact number. would any calls to my house be illegal? i had not given them the ok to call my house at any point.

thoughts?

Robert gives you excellent advice; I'd add "welcome" and that in the future you might want to start a new thread when you have a new question rather than adding it to an existing thread. You will get more attention for your question that way. But Robert has told you pretty much all you need to know about this particular issue! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching you two banter is interesting, but what I'd like to hear are people's experiences. Thank you, NASCAR, for sharing.

So, some questions for the experienced ones:

What collectors honored the limited c&d?

What collectors ignored it?

Which ones sued?

I hope this brings the post back to topic. Laws are written to be argued. Experience is King.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clark v. Capital Credit Oregon, 9th Cir Court of Appeals in which the 9th circuit clearly agrees with my assertion as to the manner in which section 805 works. This is a very recent decision and one of the few concentrating on the "communications" issue.

The subject of the case involves a consumer WAIVER of thier clear RIGHT to have debt collectors NOT contact them by telephone once informed that this is "inconvenient".

They wouldn't be discussing the legal issues around the waiver of something IF you didn't have the thing to be waivered in the first place.

The court discussion.... THREE JUDGE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS, not some no-name moron small claims judge... clearly illuminates the consumer's RIGHT to inform the debt collector that it is "inconvenient" to contact them by telephone. They further make it clear violation of this request is a prima-facia FDCPA violation.

Yes the collectors can still call, but you can then record/log and sue/countersue for the violation.

As for "limited cease and.." that is not what this is, it is simply a requirement that the collector communicate in writing.... which is precisely what the consumer should ALWAYS require, so there is no debate about who "said" what, etc. Collectors are not "ceased or desisted" from collections, only from telephone harrassment.

The fact this interferes with the collection tactics of telephone harrassment that collectors enjoy and rely upon for maximum results and maximum profitablity is just too friggin bad. You want to collect, obey the law, period. Violate and get sued/countersued.

Federal Law does NOT codify a right for collectors to harrass consumers over the telephone, and noone needs to stand for it. Simply exercise your right as a consumer to end the telephone harrassment and force the collector to employ less effective means of annoying the hell out of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clark v. Capital Credit Oregon, 9th Cir Court of Appeals in which the 9th circuit clearly agrees with my assertion as to the manner in which section 805 works....

No....they don't.

It is clear that the court considered Clarks’ request to “cease communication” as a directive to cease all communication (what is commonly and erroneously called a "C&D"). As such, the collection attorney who returned her call violated her right to request no communication.

There was no decision on the application of section 805 and/or its ability to require that a collector only cease telephone communication while allowing written communication (why is it not surprising that the most OVERTURNED Federal Appeals Cout would get it wrong? :hmm: ).

As for "limited cease and.." that is not what this is, it is simply a requirement that the collector communicate in writing.... which is precisely what the consumer should ALWAYS require, so there is no debate about who "said" what, etc. Collectors are not "ceased or desisted" from collections, only from telephone harrassment.

No one has said a consummer shouldn't request that all communication be in writing; only that such a request does not have the force of law.

A collector who is simply calling a consummer on the telephone is NOT guilty of "telephone harassment" just from the act of calling or just because the consumer doesn't want the phone calls.

And regardless of what the FDCPA says and/or what a court says, no consumer EVER has to talk to anyone on the phone if they don't want to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"uwackme", more like "out of wack"

I have a little trouble with you telling people that if they inform a CA to only communicate in writing gives them explicit permission to record them.

You are misleading some people to violate their state laws if they live in a 2 party state. Some states require that permission to be in every recorded call.

If you wanted, you could inform a CA in writing that you work from 5p-5a and you sleep from 8a-4p and they can only call you from 4p-5p. I think that would exercise the law more than a limited C&D.

You clinging to 1 court decision that is imminent to be overturned and the tons of cases that don't recognize a limited C&D, I think you are fighting an up hill battle.

If you feel that strongly about your opinion, do some limited C&Ds, take them to court and get us some case law to utilize. I would love to be able to use this as a resource, as I'm sure others would too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not how I read it. Yes the court isn't RULING on the specifics of using the "inconvenient" term, but they also make it clear the consumer is in the drivers seat over WHAT and WHEN is "inconvenient". And the ramifications if the KNOWN prohibition is violated.

So stating in a DV that "it is inconvenient to contact me by TELEPHONE at any time or place" tells the collector PRECISELY when they are forbidden and not forbidden from communicating. It clearly tells the collector they are free to WRITE and sending dunnings, and settlement offers, and validation, etc. Just not call.

The specific statutory exceptions also provide for the ability of the collector to CALL on the TELEPHONE even after recieving this notice.... but limits the contact to a short list: informing the consumer they are dropping the case; informing the consumer they are gonna seek a specific remedy, aka sue, whatever; otherwise reorting some change in the status of the debt. But those exceptions CANNOT be used as a blanket excuse to bypass the prohibition of "inconvenience". With a specific mention, you couldn't call repeatedly, once under the guise of each of the allowed exceptions.

Perhaps there is not alot of court cases over the concept because it is so clear and commonsense that it just hasn't been an issue OR so few people have ever bothered to use the "inconvenience" phrase with precision that it hasn't been an issue.

At some point it will be, in the meantime, on topic for the OP, if you are being HARRASSED on the phone and want to make the "calls stop" this is a mechanism under the law that you can avail yourself of.

I'd also point out that this is federal, but many STATES have laws on the books as well, which implement a similar mechanism to stop telephone harrassment. Always read you state laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have a little trouble with you telling people that if they inform a CA to only communicate in writing gives them explicit permission to record them."

CDL, I dont know where that comes from. Im sure if you search for my comments on recording Ive been clear. Federal law and rules of evidence allow you to record, regardless of what state law says. BUT, since we live in states no reason not to obey when needed. So in 2 party states TELL THE COLLECTOR they are being recorded (unless they already told YOU they were recording YOU, which many do.) as this covers your butt legally ON TAPE. It usually wont stop the abusive collectors from going right ahead, assuming you are pulling thier leg and then violating left and right.

Ive always been a proponent of just telling them AND RECORDING THEM so there is no courtroom bologna about who said what to whom about what.... it's all on legally admissiable TAPE loud and clear.

If I casually mention recording in this topic, I apologize, but it was said with the assumption people doing thier research would understand the context.... legality at all times. We complain and work oout defenses here over collector illegality, it would be highly hypocritical of us to engage in our own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Get a phone recorder at Radioshack. Answer the next call while recording. Tell them you dont discuss such things on the phone and to send you something in writing. Confirm only your name and address NOTHING ELSE. "I dont give out financial information over the phone".

I'm assuming they have NOT sent you anything in writing...and you know its NCO from the caller ID.

Then DV them when the letter comes...

"I dispute this alleged debt and demand strict proof thereof. I hereby exercise my right to require debt validation be provided me.

It is inconvenient to contact me by telephone at anytime and any place."

That simple snetence uses the FDCPA law language to forbid them to call you any longer. Give it 10 business days for them to "act on your request" and from then on any CALLS would be a FDCPA violation.

You want them to keep calling though, hope they do and violate, RECORD all calls and then at totally stupid and let the collector violate other FDCPA rules with threats, misinformation, and the usual tactics they love to engage in.

:shock::)++88-):hmm: That doesn't sound clear to me. Try your Fed. claim in a PA court and see how you make out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not how I read it. Yes the court isn't RULING on the specifics of using the "inconvenient" term, but they also make it clear the consumer is in the drivers seat over WHAT and WHEN is "inconvenient". And the ramifications if the KNOWN prohibition is violated.

So stating in a DV that "it is inconvenient to contact me by TELEPHONE at any time or place" tells the collector PRECISELY when they are forbidden and not forbidden from communicating. It clearly tells the collector they are free to WRITE and sending dunnings, and settlement offers, and validation, etc. Just not call.

Yes, I know that’s not how you read it because such a reading doesn’t fit your opinion. The consumer is only "in the driver's seat" when the consumer can substantiate that claimed telephone contact is, actually, inconvenient – merely claiming so is not substantiation.

The specific statutory exceptions also provide for the ability of the collector to CALL on the TELEPHONE even after recieving this notice.... but limits the contact to a short list: informing the consumer they are dropping the case; informing the consumer they are gonna seek a specific remedy, aka sue, whatever; otherwise reorting some change in the status of the debt. But those exceptions CANNOT be used as a blanket excuse to bypass the prohibition of "inconvenience". With a specific mention, you couldn't call repeatedly, once under the guise of each of the allowed exceptions.

You are making the same error as the error-prone 9th Circuit…applying prohibitions granted by the FDCPA when the consumer invokes a full cease communication order with totally separate restrictions imposed by the act when certain and well defined contact is specifically restricted (such as a restriction to not call the consumer at work because such telephone places the consumer’s employment in jeopardy or restricting contact using the consumer’s cell phone because it places a cost burden on the consumer…those restrictions CAN be enforced as an FDCPA violation because they are specific and can be substantiated and have significant case law and FDCPA staff opinions behind them).

Perhaps there is not alot of court cases over the concept because it is so clear and commonsense that it just hasn't been an issue OR so few people have ever bothered to use the "inconvenience" phrase with precision that it hasn't been an issue.

Or, perhaps, there aren’t a lot of court cases because most attorney’s understand the law well enough to know that most judges, including Federal judges, aren’t going to buy the rather ridiculous argument that “all phone calls at any time and at any place are “inconvenient”, and can therefore be restricted per FDCPA unless the consumer has sustainable reasons for making such a claim. Therefore, they don’t bring such cases claiming continued contact is a violation.

I'd also point out that this is federal, but many STATES have laws on the books as well, which implement a similar mechanism to stop telephone harrassment. Always read you state laws.

Actually, only a very few states have any laws that extend the FDCPA in any way.

I’ll say it once again, the simple act of a collector calling on the telephone is not harassment – your continued back-door insinuation that it is only serves to weaken the specific, legal meaning of the word “harassment”.

If a consumer is truly being harassed on the telephone then their local police, telephone provider and/or the FCC is who the consumer should be talking with; not trying to win a long-shot FDCPA violation case.

I'll also say, once again, that arguing about whether all telephone contact can be restricted and/or is a violation is all rather silly in the first place - the consumer has an excellent and immediately effective tool at their disposal to stop all collector calls; all they have to do is not answer the stupid phone!

Link to post
Share on other sites
"I have a little trouble with you telling people that if they inform a CA to only communicate in writing gives them explicit permission to record them."

CDL, I dont know where that comes from. Im sure if you search for my comments on recording Ive been clear. Federal law and rules of evidence allow you to record, regardless of what state law says. BUT, since we live in states no reason not to obey when needed. So in 2 party states TELL THE COLLECTOR they are being recorded (unless they already told YOU they were recording YOU, which many do.) as this covers your butt legally ON TAPE. It usually wont stop the abusive collectors from going right ahead, assuming you are pulling thier leg and then violating left and right.

Ive always been a proponent of just telling them AND RECORDING THEM so there is no courtroom bologna about who said what to whom about what.... it's all on legally admissiable TAPE loud and clear.

If I casually mention recording in this topic, I apologize, but it was said with the assumption people doing thier research would understand the context.... legality at all times. We complain and work oout defenses here over collector illegality, it would be highly hypocritical of us to engage in our own.

Wack...I'm not sure if you are deliberately posting dis(mis)-information or you really believe the tripe you're posting...wolf in sheeps clothing... bottom feeding JDB or CA....whatever...I for one am going to send you to the land of the ignored and would urge others to do the same....bu bye:)++

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Ive tried to help. The OP wanted to stop the calls.

Without getting nasty, lets cut the crap, 99% of collectors "phone calls" are not nice pleasent Hi how are you, they are instead deliberate confrontations to evoke a response from the alleged debtor...ie: PAY UP. With the hundreds nay thousands of consumers who have come to this site seeking help dealing with collection, we've all read the perpetual story of abusive calls, abusive language, hey deadbeat why dont you pay your bills, etc, etc.

Telephone calls from collectors are a TOOL of collection, manned by personel trained professionally to skirt the letter of the law in abuse and "gitmo" a payment out of the alleged debtor. Given the fact it is industry standard practice, I'd have to assume IT WORKS or they would move onto something else more effective.

In the specific case I cited, Clark v Capital, all parties in the case.... Capital a CA, and thier collection attorney were ALL obeying and operating under Mr Clark's demand accompanying his DV, that they:

"NOT CALL Mrs Clark at work, or Mr and Mrs Clark at home" period. Not 8am-9pm, not ANYTIME by telephone PERIOD.

Mr Clark in a DV similar language I suggest (actually other experts suggest, which I have used to good effect personally).

All parties involved ADHERED to the prohibition and conducted business, collections AND an entire lawsuit in writing just as one would expect of the entities involved OBEYING THE LAW. ..... and the Appeals court Justices discuss the background of the matter as if all of that was perfectly correct and lawful and what one would expect to be the case.

*****

Until, after the collection suit ended, and judgment was granted, and in seeking information in reference to the judgment situation, Mrs Clark CALLED the lawfirm's secretary. The CASE in Clark v Capital is what happened after that call. Effectively, by Mrs Clark accidently calling rather than writing, she effectively WAIVED her protection under the prohibition of telephone communication Mr Clark had instituted in his DV request way back at the start of the collection action.

The court in its decision explains how her action waived the prohibition granted by Mr Clark's written statement (forbidding telephone communications, but not WRITTEN communications) to the Collection Agency Capital at the start of the collection action. But ONLY to the lawfirm and NOT for the other parties involved. Capital then called HER back, and apparently harrased the crap out of her, a mentally disturbed person, and it was this harrassment that precipitated the Clark's filing suit for FDCPA violations, etc. And the court found the waiver did not transfer to other parties, only the party called by Mrs Clark. So Capital was still subject to the prohibition and was in violation of Mr. Clark's prohibition on telephone communications under the FDCPA section 805, ... as well as possible other FDCPA violations as regards the CONTENT of the conversation.

*****

So MY cliff notes on this case are:

1) Mr Clark included a statement in his DV at the beginning of the collection case from Capital, this statement informed them "to NOT CALL Mrs Clark at work, and Mr. or Mrs. Clark at home."

2) All parties for months/years OBEYED and ADHERED to that prohibition, all the while conducting collection and ultimately a lawsuit and court proceedings, IN WRITING. Clearly through thier actions IMPLYING that the telephone prohibition had the weight of law in thier eyes, and therefore they obeyed it, all the while continuing thier business activities in writing over the course of two or three years of activity.

3) The court in thier detailing the events leading up to the FDCPA case at no point spoke about this prohibition, and the adherence to it by the players in the collection efforts, as ABNORMAL or out of line or out of the norm in any way. The court, matter of factly, mentions the written prohibition to TELEPHONE communications aka "to NOT CALL..." as if it were perfectly lawful and reasonable and expected.

4) The court further, in admitting that a WAIVER of the prohibition had occured by Mrs. Clark calling the collection attorney's secretary, implicitly ACKNOWLEDGES the existence of the LAWFUL PROHIBITION that is being waived.

5) That lawful prohibition being... Mr Clark included in his DV and sentence informing the creditor to NOT CALL his wife at work or he and his wife at home, PERIOD, meaning AT ANY TIME.

Not just between 8am and 9pm, or any other collection industry myth or propaganda people wish to proclaim actually to be the truth.

That is MY analysis of the court's reading of the case. If that makes me out to be some "collection industry hack"? So be it. Though I dont quite get the concept of how fighting for CONSUMERS rights to not get harrassed on the phone is something that "helps" collectors...?

OH, you think I'm trying to mislead consumers into making mistakes that would "help" collectors, oh. Ok. Gee you got me.

Meantime, for people actually interested in exercising thier RIGHTS, I believe including the statement:

"It is inconvenient to contact me by telephone at any time or any place." adheres precisely to the prohibition mechanism under the FDCPA section 805, and serves only to prevent telephone harrassment (or the potential for it) while in no way forbiding COMMUNICATION from the collector or acting as a cease and desist order. The collector is free to conduct business in writing, and you have clearly by NOT prohibiting communication in writing left the door open for an adult discourse as regards the alleged debt.... in writing where it belongs.

If you want to IGNORE me for stating my case and argument for consumer rights, feel free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.