Sent DV elected arb & do not call. They are calling work and my home.

[hockeymom]

Hi all. Pretty new here, been reading for weeks. Weltman Weinberg and Reise sent me dunning letter. I replied CMRRR requesting validation, electing arb and do not call.

They validated. They are now calling me, and my work . This is a violation but I'm not sure How to proceed? Should I Let them know that I'm aware this is a violation and my demand for Jams still stands?

They are lawyers, but not sure if jdb.

[1stStep]

You will need to send another written letter informing them that calls to work are prohibited. Send it CMRRR. If they call work after that, please invite them to the nearest Federal courthouse to explain to the nice judge.

[hockeymom]

I said that in my first letter. I will send another one as well.

Do attorneys working for the the OC have to follow the same rules?

[1stStep]

Yes - they would be considered debt collectors under the FDCPA.

This means you can sue them for violations. The even better part is that the OCs will indemnify - meaning that suing the law firm means the OC pays the legal bill - which can often exceed the underlying debt.

[hockeymom]

Depending on How much each violation is, I think they may exceed the debt.

Should I alert them I know this is a violation or Let them keep racking up? Everything I've dead about these guys, they are nasty and don't care.

[1stStep]

No - the damages are per action - meaning they can violate you - I mean the FDCPA as many times they want and the damages are limited to $1k. But you stack costs and attorney fees, and it can go up from there...

I had one law firm have to shell out $80k in legal fees....which was 20x the alleged debt.

[Flyerfan]

Depending on How much each violation is, I think they may exceed the debt.

Should I alert them I know this is a violation or Let them keep racking up? Everything I've dead about these guys, they are nasty and don't care.

Send one more letter as 1stStep indicated but mark dates and times they call. Have a folder of their violations.

[1stStep]

Exactly - you will probably be using them...

[hockeymom]

OK, Thanks. I'm going to mail these today. Like I said from my reading,these guys are nasty to deal with. Hopefully from the help and all the knowledge on this board I'll be ready.

[antiquedave]

I said that in my first letter. I will send another one as well.

Do attorneys working for the the OC have to follow the same rules?

Can you post the content of the first letter? If you already told them calls to work are prohibited and they are calling work then I'd turn all the info over to a Consumer Attorney

ALSO make sure they get a copy of the dunning letter

[hockeymom]

I sent it CMRRR.

It said I am in receipt of your letter dated... This letter serves as my dispute of this debt. I am requesting validation. As of this date I exercise the arbitration clause in any agreement between myself and..... I elect to use Jams.

I find all phone calls inconvenient to my Home, place of employment or any number on file. Please contact through mail.

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

I believe the section they violated is 1692 C, there is an extensive post on this we put up yesterday, it has lots of case law. Coltfan and I both posted on it.

[willingtocope]

Sorry guys. "All phone calls are inconvient" is not an option. You either tell them to "Cease and Desist" in which case they get one more call to tell you their intent, or, once they have validated, they can resume calling.

They cannot call you at work if yo tell them your employer does not allow personal calls...but they can still phone home.

And, I don't think electing arbitration stops the calls either...

[hockeymom]

Everywhere I have looked, they say all calls are an inconvenience. This isn't the case? They can call whenever they want?

[willingtocope]

There is nothing in the FDCPA about "all calls are inconvient". There are some court decesions that have found that excessive calls at home constitute abuse, but that is an entirely different matter. Also, calls that cost you money...e.g., cell phone minutes...are against the FDCPA.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't walk in front of a judge and say "they violated my rights because they called me and I told them not to" as my sole reason for claiming they violated the FDCPA.

[KentWA]

I have to disagree willingtocope:

15 USC 1692c(a)(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;

[hockeymom]

That makes perfect sense. I just saw everyone speaking of telephone violations any many people use the do not call. I thought I had some violations on them that I could use later.

My "Home" number is my cell number.

Calling my work is definitely not OK with my employer.

[willingtocope]

I think the key phrase there is "at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient ". Simply saying ALL calls are inconvenient doesn't make it so.

YMMV, but like I said, I wouldn't hang my case solely on that...

On the other hand, KentWA has more experience in litigation than I do...

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

Also 1692 (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.

(she told them not to call her work and they did anyway)

Also this: © Ceasing communication

If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt

The case law we posted yesterday backs this up, they got killed for calling when they were told not to. The statute is interpreted to benefit the consumer, not the JDB lawyer who thinks he's immune.

[Coltfan1972]

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/317921-possible-violation.html#post1210607

I obviously respectfully disagree with Willingtocope and you do have a violation and I would bust the door down to the courthouse getting to them.

You have to understand that you don't have to interpert the FDCPA or know the law. Would the least sophisicated consumer know they MIGHT be waiving the cease communications with a limited C&D or is the LSC intent and wish in their letter crystal clear.

Note the strong language of the courts when dealing with waiving a protection under the FDCPA. Also don't forget "unfair" practices are defined, at least according to the United States Supreme Court" if they violate public policy. What would the public see as your intent in those letters.

In other words, sue, sue, sue,

Edited November 20, 2012 by Coltfan1972

[hockeymom]

Coltfan

Do you think I would be better off suing now or racking up violation against them to use later when they they Sue me for the alleged debt? I read that they violate constantly

.they are a lawfirm collecting for the oc

[willingtocope]

Here's the thing. Back in the day when I had $100k in BUSINESS credit card debt that my company defaulted on...but I had personally guaranteed...whenever a CA would call I would point out to them since it was now, for all intents and purposes, a PERSONAL debt it was therefore subject to the FDCPA. Saying that scared away many CAs, including some of the biggest names in the business. They would hand the debt back to the OC, and another CA would call.

Was I right in claiming this? Probably not. The FDCPA specifically states that it does not apply to business debt. But, it bought me some time. It turns out that most CAs don't know the FDCPA any better than the "least sophisticated consumer" (LSC).

If it had gone to court, and I used their treatment of me, the LSC, as a defense, I might have won. And then again, I might of gone before the judge who started the proceedings by looking at me and saying "I understand you owe these fine people some money. Pay up".

My point is...its a crap shoot.

Calling your cell (if it costs you money) is definitely a violation. Calling you at work after being told you're not allowed to receive personal calls is definitely a violation. Calling you at home (even if it is a cell) after being told "all calls are inconvient" probably isn't.

However...if you have the time and the moxy and are willing to prepare a law suit based on that premise...you might scare them into coughing up money, or just handing it back to the OC. If it goes before a judge, he might agree with you...on the other hand, he might not...because there is nothing in the FDCPA about a "limited" C&D. You either tell them you refuse to pay so stop calling, or they (under the law) can continue.

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

When in doubt, call them out. Like Willingtocope said, the lawyers they use are incompetent. We say this all the time here. It usually turns out like this. "This ain't no business debt, and you ain't F Lee Bailey."

[KentWA]

There are more than one solid violation there. So you can do one of two things, Sit and wait, hoping they do not sue you and keeping these violations for that time (but you may run out of time due to SOL of 1 year). Or you can take the battle to them and ensure they never ever want to have anything to ever do with you by filing suit before they even have a chance to sue you. Remember in most states, they can not counter sue for the debt, they have file a separate suit.

Plaintiff need not prove intent, bad faith or negligence in an FDCPA case. The “FDCPA is a strict liability statute,” and “proof of one violation is sufficient to support summary judgment for the plaintiff.” Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F. Supp. at 505. Accord, Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Associates, Inc., 330 F.3d 991, 995 (7th Cir. 2003); Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp., 233 F.3d 469, 472 (7th Cir.2000).

In the end, you are the only one that can decide if you want to sue them. However as many people here will tell you, once you sue one CA or JDB, most of the rest of them do not want anything to do with you ever again.

[Coltfan1972]

Calling you at home (even if it is a cell) after being told "all calls are inconvient" probably isn't.

I respect and understand most of what you are saying Willing, but I just can't comprehend how anybody could argue, especially using the LSC and the case precedents, that this is not a violation.

You tell them all calls, and using the plain language of the statute and the definition of "all" and "all" means "all" I simply don't see how this can't be a violation.

I mean how much clearer can one be. All calls are incinvient. She even used the term inconvient as it is written in the FDCPA and then told them "all"