Sign in to follow this  
cajun_duck

Phone call wife received

Recommended Posts

First let me say the new site looks great.  I haven't been here in a while.  It has been a rough time since I was last here.  Onto the subject at hand.  my wife received a phone call from a collection agent today on the work phone.  She immediately told them that she can get fired for them calling on that phone.  Their response was, "Well, we needed to verify your work place."  Now, before I continue, keep in mind that this is over $125.00.  They threatened to garnish her wages.  They asked her where I worked and my work phone number so they can contact me to verify where I work.  She asked them for a detailed bill on this and was told that she would have to submit for it in writing with a check or money order for five dollars made out to them.  Franklin Collections.  They also told my wife that it was for MRI place.  There is nowhere here called "Mri place." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check your CR, see if there is anything on it. Whats your SOL there? Do you recall any outstanding debts that may amount to what they are asking. Tell them to sue you for $125.00. Bet they won't do it because of the cost, but they will harass you and not send out a dunning letter. Try and locate them so that you can send a DV letter out because they won't send one in the required five days.

Bet they are bottom feeders like RJM and others out there that keep popping up. Except that they will call you at work until you put a stop to it, that's probably about all you will hear from them is calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she recorded the call, then it's time to invite them to court and cash in. Otherwise, just send them a debt validation letter.

 

Option 1, wait and see if they send a dunning letter, option 2 send them a DV letter now;

 

 

 

To whom it may concern:

 

On xx date, I received a call from your company regarding xx debt, I did not receive anything in written from you yet. I herby notify you that I dispute the validity of  this alleged debt, and request debt validation.

 

All phone calls are inconvenient, communicate with me by United State Postal Service only.

 

Sincerely Me

 

 

If you wait for the letter just delete the first part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they will sue over $125, but since the threat was made I would give them 90 days. At the end of 90 days someone is getting sued - of not you then them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may very well sue for $125.  In "Dokumaci v. MAF," (M.D. Fla. 2011), he was sued for a $38 medical bill.  He sued them for for debt collection calls that violated the FDCPA.

 

Franklin Collections Serv is based in Tupelo, MS.  In Oct 13, 2010, they signed a Consent Agreement with the Commissioner of Banks, Commonwealth of Mass.  You can read it by doing a Google search.

 

In "Meadows v. Franklin Coll Serv.," (11th Cir. 2011),  the appeals court held that non-debtors had standing to sue for debt collection calls that violated 15 USC 1692d of the FDCPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no provisions in the fdcpa that states you have to pay for a debt validation. Send a dv if they send back a leter that states it will cost you 5 bucks, send them a letter that starts with  "SUMMONS" let a judge figure out if they can charge you or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no provisions in the fdcpa that states you have to pay for a debt validation. Send a dv if they send back a leter that states it will cost you 5 bucks, send them a letter that starts with  "SUMMONS" let a judge figure out if they can charge you or not.

 

I would think that charging for debt validation would be a violation of 1692f--Unfair practices.

 

I would consult with a La. consumer lawyer www.naca.net

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDCPA says they cannot try to collect until they answer.  If $5 is holding them up from answering, then $5 is holding them up from doing collections if you send a DV.  Since a collector can choose to not respond (and thus also not collect) I see no violation.  The violations are trying to collect after the unresponded DV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In "Sandlin v. Shapiro and & Fishman," (M.D. Fla. 1996),  the court  held that 1692g  did NOT prohibit the imposition of a charge for validation.  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In "Sandlin v. Shapiro and & Fishman," (M.D. Fla. 1996),  the court  held that 1692g  did NOT prohibit the imposition of a charge for validation.  Interesting.

 

If I may expand on that.

 

The 1692g claim failed because that particular statute contains no language specifically prohibiting a charge. Plaintiff argued that imposition of fee overshadowed right to dispute. Court reasoned that just because debt collector purported to charge a fee, that did not prevent plaintiff from exercising his right to dispute. He wasn't being "charged" to dispute, he was told he would be charged for the response. I agree.

 

The fun part comes when the court pointed out that, even though the "charge" did not violate 1692g, it could be a violation of 1692f, for attempting to collect unauthorized debt. Got 'em anyway! And, congrats to you all who picked up on the f(1) violation!! That was a great catch.

 

"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action, upon which relief may be granted, as it relates to the alleged violation of § 1692f(1)" Sandlin v. Shapiro & Fishman, 919 F.Supp. 1564, 1568 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 1692f(1) prohibits a debt collector from using "unfair or unconscionable" means to collect a debt, and specifies that collecting an amount which is not expressly authorized in the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law is a violation of the act. Ducrest v. Alco Collections, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 459, 461 (M.D.La.1996).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fun part comes when the court pointed out that, even though the "charge" did not violate 1692g, it could be a violation of 1692f, for attempting to collect unauthorized debt. Got 'em anyway! And, congrats to you all who picked up on the f(1) violation!! That was a great catch.

As I stated in post #9 ... it's only logical.

Share this post


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