Jump to content

Who's dumber me or them?


Recommended Posts

So I have gotten 4 of these messages now 2 on landline and 2 on cellphone over the past 10 days. I have Vonage, and it transcribes the voicemail, and gives me a .wav copy as well. I never answer because they block the caller ID, not to mention that it's never worth talking to such scum. So here it goes:

"Good afternoon, this message is intended solely for Mr. so and so. Mr. so and so, my name is Ms. crap face calling to verify the correct address for the issuance of a legally required notice, it is very important that I do speak with you or anyone that could confirm this information. Sir, this is not a solicitation call. By any means we do need to speak today. The number where I can be reached to discuss this matter further is toll free 855-555-5555. My direct extension will be 123. I do wish to follow up and resolve this matter promptly."

After doing some research, I did determine that the number is for a CA, but aren't they required to identify themselves? Also, why would they play the babe in the woods im lost routine? But if they seriously think I'm going to "confirm" an address for them....So I guess my question is...violation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did it correctly-- 100% by the book.

§ 804. Acquisition of location information

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall—

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;

The CA doesn't know if anyone else can listen to your messages, so they have to assume that someone other than the creditor will hear the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did it correctly-- 100% by the book.

§ 804. Acquisition of location information

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall—

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;

The CA doesn't know if anyone else can listen to your messages, so they have to assume that someone other than the creditor will hear the message.

They called OP's number. Unless they have reason to believe that OP is not at that number, OP could claim that they failed to identify themselves as a debt collector, and thus violated. The situation here is a catch-22 for DCs in many instances. Until the laws are changed, DCs are better off not leaving messages at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did it correctly-- 100% by the book.

§ 804. Acquisition of location information

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall—

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;

The CA doesn't know if anyone else can listen to your messages, so they have to assume that someone other than the creditor will hear the message.

But why would they need to verify location? I havent moved in many many years. Im certain whoever they are has my address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would they need to verify location? I havent moved in many many years. Im certain whoever they are has my address.

They can call for verification of location without identifying themselves as a debt collector to a third party. Verifying your address is a standard part of debt collection.

Not identifying themselves as a debt collector isnot a violation if the intent of the call was to verify location. However, if they get the debtor on the line, they must then disclose that they are a debt collector, all information will be used to collect a debt, blah, blah, blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did it correctly-- 100% by the book.

§ 804. Acquisition of location information

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall—

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;

The CA doesn't know if anyone else can listen to your messages, so they have to assume that someone other than the creditor will hear the message.

I disagree (I know big shock when it comes to collectors leaving messages).

"For the issuance of a legally required notice"

Explain to me in the law you quoted where it states shall inform the party the information is needed to issue a legally required notice.

The law does not use may or can, but shall. It then specifically lays out what the collector shall disclose.

ID themselves- Good with that one

State that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer- They said they wanted to verify and that is a form of confirming the address so no problem there.

Right there the return phone number should have been left and the call ended. The law does not say they can disclose the reason they need the address confirmed.

In fact, it goes so far as to say they can only disclose their employer if asked. If congress wanted to address other disclosures that could be given to a third party they clearly would have written that into the FDCPA.

Furthermore, it's obvious by saying a legally required notice that the implication, especically to the least sophisicated consumer is that the message is from somebody that is probably not calling to wish the OP a good day. Most people that would just call to say hi would have the correct address. Also note they say the issuance of a notice. Issuance? That has lawsuit or collections written all over and even the most sophisicated consumer would think the same thing.

They should have shut their trap and never said for the issuance of a legally required notice. I've not even gotten to the point of what this legally required notice is. Required? Really? Unless they had made initial contact prior, with the OP, there would be nothing legally required at this time. However, that is moot.

I would be confirming my address for them. It would be in the top left hand corner, right above, In the Eastern District Court of Arkansas

COMPLAINT

and confirmed for them at the end of the complaint where I sign my name and give my address.

And for good measure would throw in the fact they did not disclose who there were. Of course if they had I'd throw in they had disclosed who they were to a third party.

USAGI555 is right, they are screwed either way when leaving a message. Hate it for them. They would never use a similar law that work to their advantage against a consumer.

They disclosed more than they were legally allowed to disclose.

They implied to the least sophisicated consumer there was a lawsuit that needed to be served, by using the term issued.

They failed to properly disclose who they were and they were a debt collector trying to collect a debt.

Oh as to the OP question, them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison purposes, this is the first message they left me about 10 days ago.

"Good afternoon, my name is ****. We are attempting to locate the address for ***** in reference to a matter I ever received in my office. It is important that you or someone else contact us so that we may be able to confirm your address. If you are **** confirm your address please call me at ****. Thank you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Coltfan and 1stStep.

Personally, I think the CA was simply trying to scare the OP into returning the call by using the phrase "legally required notice". It's possible they didn't want to leave their identifying information because the call might not sound quite so urgent after all. They were trying to cover their their tushies by making the call appear to be an attempt at location information. Therefore, they wouldn't have to leave the identifying information.

I don't believe the call falls into the category of location information. The CA wasn't calling a 3rd party. They called the OP's number. Even if the CA really wanted to confirm an address, by calling the debtor's phone number, they're communicating with the debtor.

I could understand not leaving identifying information on a landline answering machine, but I would argue that voice mail is a different matter. One must enter a password to listen to the messages on their cell phone. Those messages aren't accessible by others.

The call was misleading and confusing to the least sophisticated consumer, did not contain identifying information, and did not contain the proper notice.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've passed these messages on to a law firm for their review. But a few more questions.

When can I expect to receive a dunning letter from these clowns?

Is it worth making contact with them? I already called them back using a blocked phone (they answered using their abbreviated name, ERS I believe, I promptly hung up.)

Any more suggestions? You have all been a great help thus far. I can defend against lawsuits but now I'm going to really start chasing down these violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean ER Solutions out of WA state?

They violate all the time...in fact I sued them last August for FDCPA violation for changing the account number to collect without providing validation. They settled and paid me...

Then they contact me last month and violate the TCPA. I'm getting ready to sue on the TCPA violations... 6 calls @ $1500 per call - means a big contribution to the Latin American Retirement Palace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean ER Solutions out of WA state?

They violate all the time...in fact I sued them last August for FDCPA violation for changing the account number to collect without providing validation. They settled and paid me...

Then they contact me last month and violate the TCPA. I'm getting ready to sue on the TCPA violations... 6 calls @ $1500 per call - means a big contribution to the Latin American Retirement Palace.

LOLOLOL dude! You've been busy here lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean ER Solutions out of WA state?

They violate all the time...in fact I sued them last August for FDCPA violation for changing the account number to collect without providing validation. They settled and paid me...

Then they contact me last month and violate the TCPA. I'm getting ready to sue on the TCPA violations... 6 calls @ $1500 per call - means a big contribution to the Latin American Retirement Palace.

Hey 1stStep,

I've been getting calls from ER Solution since March 5th. Other than the very first time I answered the phone, I NEVER get to talk to them.

I asked for an explanation letter as I did not recall ever having an account with ATT Wireless (that is out of SOL, at the 10 year mark now) and the woman assured me they'd send it... of course, I figured I'd get nothing and of course, have gotten nothing. I played dumb, hoping to bait them.

They keep calling and calling and I get the auto-voice, saying this is a call for me (the auto-dialer butchers my name lol), but I pick up and it *never* goes to a live person. Not ever. And then calling back using *69 it always goes to a machine, or a fast busy signal, with no glory of getting a person.

How can I snag the TCPA violations you speak of? What can I do my end to make them violate? Curious...

Also, since their first communication to me was March 5th, do you think I should send them a DV or a C&D letter, just to cover my bases? The debt is 100% past SOL, so I know I don't need to.

Thought I might play with them a little bit....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So TCPA violations occur if they use an automated dialer and leave non-emergency pre-recorded messages on your cellular voice mail.

You also have to make sure that they know that you have not in the past, nor have going forward, explicit consent to make such calls.

If they continue, then you record their messages, and file suit - it's $1,500 per call for willful violations of the TCPA.

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.