BTO429 Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 I have been hearing from some friends that they are getting auto dialers that say please call concerning an important business matter, when they call its a debt collector. Wouldnt this be misleading and illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtorshusband Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 Well, I don't return calls for messages like that. But I don't see how it is misleading, thus illegal. However, I do think is triggers the FDCPA requirement to send a letter within 5 days that spells out one's dispute rights, etc.Regards,DH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RateNerd Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 According to Cena Valladolid, chief operating officer with Consumer Credit Counseling of Southern Nevada (CCCS), a non-profit organization that offers budget education, debt counseling, and elimination programs to consumers, talking to creditors can afford you an opportunity to become educated on special programs and repayment terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 RateNerd - hope you liked your time here at CIC.Goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2010 I would say it is misleading as it could make some consumers so interested in what it could be that they call. Thats dirty pool if ya ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolemite73 Posted March 15, 2010 Report Share Posted March 15, 2010 I have been hearing from some friends that they are getting auto dialers that say please call concerning an important business matter, when they call its a debt collector. Wouldnt this be misleading and illegal?It is misleading if the CA did not clearly state who they are in the original message. Foti v. NCO has really put CA's into a catch-22. If they don't state who they are on the phone, they are in violation of the FDCPA. If they do state who they are on the phone, they may be violating the third-party restriction of the FDCPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2010 They don't say who they are just the name of the person to call the number and they say it is concerning a very important business matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolemite73 Posted March 15, 2010 Report Share Posted March 15, 2010 They don't say who they are just the name of the person to call the number and they say it is concerning a very important business matter.Misleading, therefore, a violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexip60 Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 yea, and they even call,use only your first name, as if they are a friend calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marimacha Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 A friendly recording of a person named Ben Wallace has repeatedly called my father's house. He apparently has an important business matter to discuss. Doesn't state the name of the person he is trying to get in touch with. When you try to return the call, it's almost impossible to get a hold of a real person.This is not the NBA Ben Wallace I remind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 And they called at 840 am today.We are keeping a log of the calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momof5 Posted March 17, 2010 Report Share Posted March 17, 2010 They are calling on an important business matter. It is a business matter and it is important to them. It isn't misleading. This terminology came about because they could not leave a message on an answering machine that said, "hey, deadbeat! This is CA calling. Call me back. I want my money!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 to start with i am not a dead beat. I pay my bills. These medical bills are from my ex who did not pay for my sons medical when she had custody, I was overseas on active duty in Bosnia. Mom never mentioned jack to me about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaStriper Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 I kept it simple, when CA calls and ask for myself or wife I say "she noger lives at this address, and they ask if I have a number for her, I say why yes of course (they go in shock) but I say you can't call this number ok, they start drooling, I give our second line (we use for faxes) and ringer is off. Very rarely to they call main number back. Today is the first time in a long time that a JBC has called, I was so excited, sent out a vod the same day Nice try bud... Pass it onSeaEast Cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momof5 Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 to start with i am not a dead beat. I pay my bills. These medical bills are from my ex who did not pay for my sons medical when she had custody, I was overseas on active duty in Bosnia. Mom never mentioned jack to me about it.I wasn't directing that at you!CA's use that thought process all the time. The "quote" was meant to serve simply as an example.I understand your issue. USAF vet married to AD USArmy (who is currently in Afghanistan.) You should have see what his ex did the last time he was deployed! (they were separated back then) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 Mom had custody in 98 while I was in Bosnia. We were never married. She has done nothing but run up bills and then they come after me when she can't pay them, and she knows she can't. I keep getting sued for bills that are ten years old or more that she created.I spent 26 years in the Marines. just to retire to every one wanting my money for mistakes that my sons mother created. I now have custody. I am not paying these bills as they are past SOL. I am tired of paying for what his mother did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someonesomewhere Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 The FTC seems loath to issue any new FDCPA Staff Opinion Letters after 2002.However, they did issue this one which is on topic for the thread. Anderson and Beato (ACA International)The Foti case does seem to create a Catch-22 for CAs where they risk either an § 805 or § 807 violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUEser Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 The lack of a mini-miranda is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e(a)(11) as ruled in Foti. There's also the TCPA to consider, which can be especially helpful when you only have a cell phone. Simply withdraw prior express consent, and existing business relationship exemptions that collectors inherit is gone. That means, anymore autodialed calls to the cell phone or prerecorded messages are TCPA violations with the exception that they get one freebie. Sources: 47 U.S.C. 227 and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 For one the recording does not say it is an attempt to collect a debt. There is company name as I personally listened to the voice mails today.The voice mail says the name of the company, which is a lawyers office, the contact name, and the statement about returning the call about an important business matter.No Miranda rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUEser Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 For one the recording does not say it is an attempt to collect a debt. There is company name as I personally listened to the voice mails today.The voice mail says the name of the company, which is a lawyers office, the contact name, and the statement about returning the call about an important business matter.No Miranda rights.That would make it TCPA compliant, but per Foti you have a viable cause of action. If you really wanted to make them sweat you could ask during discovery how many people they've left this type of message to and potentially have a very large class action. The way I would go about doing it would be to first file individually and upon discovering that class members exist file a motion asking leave of the court to find an attorney to amend the complaint and properly represent the class. Once the words "class action" are uttered with seriousness I've seen wallets also open pretty fast to make it go away. Only, don't expect to be able to talk about it afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someonesomewhere Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 The voice mail says the name of the company, which is a lawyers office, the contact name, and the statement about returning the call about an important business matter.Are you sure they really are a lawyer?http://www.ishereallyalawyer.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someonesomewhere Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Here's a recent Third Circuit case in the Eastern District Of PennsylvaniaInman v. NCOhttp://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09d1288p.pdfLack of a mini-Miranda is again a violation, and the judge cited Foti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PupnCub Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 This is just my opinion on the subject, and it has worked for me in the past.If you have the number do a google search on it, get the address; then cross reference it with the name of the alleged Attorney that is attempting to contact you regarding this debt.Then send them a letter telling them to cease and desist all calls to your home number immediately, do this CMRRR. (Once you tell them to stop calling; and if they continue this is then will non-compliance and a definate violation of the FDCPA)Keeping a log of the calls is a great thing, keep that up, take pictures of your caller id if you can (I did this as well and it proved very useful in Federal Court.)If and only if you do talk to them (which I recommend you do not ever talk to a collection agency) record the conversation, and stay calm and collective. If your state is a two party state disclose to them that you are recording the call in the first 10-15 seconds of the conversation. If you are in a one party state don't thell them jack crap and get them to violate. Document everything you do with these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTO429 Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am in a one party state.There is no mirands rights on the auto call. I called the number once to see who they were and I was on hold for fifteen minutes I got tired and hung up. They call every starting at around 830 am, I am on daylight savings and am now one hour behind them during the winter we are the same time.Do they have to take into account the time difference when calling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtfreein18 Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am in a one party state.There is no mirands rights on the auto call. I called the number once to see who they were and I was on hold for fifteen minutes I got tired and hung up. They call every starting at around 830 am, I am on daylight savings and am now one hour behind them during the winter we are the same time.Do they have to take into account the time difference when calling?Yes, they must factor in the time zone of the area code they are calling!!! I can't site it but I do know that is part of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts