Jump to content

letter from attorney...


Recommended Posts

   I sent a DV CMRR on April 1, I recieved a letter from this office saying they had received my dispute

and they needed more information. This letter is dated April 2.

Is this a violation? At the bottom of the letter it says this is an attempt to collect a debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for changing that,I tried but my computer hicupped.

They sent a letter with the account number and the original creditor.

They want me to call their office so they can "properly address my concern". Which I have no plans to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's OK to communicate with them if you have something appropriate to communicate.  But that should be your decision about communicating and not as a result of them asking or demanding you communicate.

 

Do not communicate by telephone.  They use tactics and trick people while recording it.  Even the best people fall victim to this because the phone makes it hard to pause and think about what is said.  Always do all communication in writing, even if they say they want you to call, or if they call you.  By communicating in writing you can think about it ahead of time, and even come here and ask us.  And you can to re-read and think about what they are saying when it is in writing.  And there's no need to set up recording devices and try to figure out what mumbled words mean.  Also, by communicating in writing, you can document that they actually received your communication and when.  Just be sure to tell them that "telephone communications are inconvenient at all times".  The law allows them to assume that the times from 8 AM to 9 PM are convenient unless they have a reason to know otherwise.  Sending them the letter saying so makes it utterly clear.  Send everything via CMRRR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Just be sure to tell them that "telephone communications are inconvenient at all times".  The law allows them to assume that the times from 8 AM to 9 PM are convenient unless they have a reason to know otherwise.  Sending them the letter saying so makes it utterly clear.  

 

This is a commonly suggested approach. However, I've always viewed such an instruction as inherently disingenuous. I think a close reading of the statute (below) indicates that "any unusual time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient" requires the debt collector be provided with "knowledge of circumstances" as well. Simply advising a debt collector that "all calls are inconvenient" and nothing more does not, in my opinion, convey sufficient knowledge of the circumstances.

 

I've seen one or two cases addressing this over the years; one in which the court (noting the obvious) pointed out that, most consumers who owe money will find calls from debt collectors inconvenient (simply because they don't want to talk to them). But, that reason, standing alone, was not a sufficient reason for debt collector to cease calling. (Sorry, I don't have the case cite anymore). I would suggest that an "all calls are inconvenient" instruction requires the consumer to provide the debt collector with knowledge of the circumstances, e.g., "I work nights and sleep during the day," "I'm hearing impaired and find it difficult to use the phone," etc. 

 

If anyone is aware of case law holding the contrary, please feel free to share.

 

 

 

(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;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the case where it says that most consumers feel debt collection calls are inconvenient, but I don't remember the parties involved.  However, I do have this one:

 

Although a court may consider the "frequency, persistence, and volume of the telephone calls" to determine intent, the mere fact that a call is unwelcome is "insufficient to constitute a violation of the FDCPA." Martin v. Select Portfolio Serving Holding Corp., No. 1:05-cv-273, 2008 WL 618788 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 3, 2008).

 

And in Durthaler v. Accounts Receivable Management, the same OH court stated:

 

"There is no evidence that the calls were made at an inconvenient time or place, that they were made after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they stop, or that they were made after the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he was represented by counsel or a debt management company. While it is clear that the telephone calls made to the Plaintiff were unwelcome, that is simply insufficient to establish a violation of the FDCPA.  As this Court has stated previously, "[a]ny call from a debt collector may be presumed to be unwelcome, but that alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of the FDCPA."

 

However, the above does include "that they were made after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they stop".   Durthaler didn't send a C & D.  He just told them to stop calling.  Would the fact that the court noted that indicate that one could request calls to stop?  Or was the court merely including that with "inconvenient time or place"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reason for "no calls" is that a telephone is simply not a means of communication that provides a person with the opportunity to spend appropriate time considering the content of the communication.  Once the words are said, they are gone.  Extremely few people can remember the exact words that are said well after they are said.  If the call is recorded, then that can be played back over and over.  But even that is faulty when the phone's audio quality is degraded either by analog noise and bandpass distortion, or by digital compression, or by the audio input and output devices used on either end.

 

If they need a circumstance, then "... at any place where either party has a telephone that is not of high fidelity quality".  There are plenty of other reasons.

 

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw all collection over the telephone.  Send a letter or send a process server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that CAs may not be required to cease calling if you're only reason is "don't call".   I'm not sure "at any place where either party has a telephone that is not of high fidelity quality" would work because they have no way of knowing if your home or cell phone fits the description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would change my number and make it unlisted in some one else's name. Phone company usually won't charge the first time if you tell them your being harassed.

Read a report today,, that the creditors are trying to get a law passed that will allow them to call our cell phones. They cite a lot of reasons that they must be able to contact us, i.e. before the debt gets worse they can head it off etc. I should have posted it here, don't know if I can find it again. Also, becaause everyone is giving up landlines and going to cell, they have no way to contact us......lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that CAs may not be required to cease calling if you're only reason is "don't call".   I'm not sure "at any place where either party has a telephone that is not of high fidelity quality" would work because they have no way of knowing if your home or cell phone fits the description.

Strangely enough, I and a friend "built" (more like "rigged up") our own telephones in 1972.  Neither knew how they were supposed to be designed.  We just used a transformer to interface it into stereo equipment.  A regular phone was used to dial, and then we switched over to the stereo equipment.  The quality was amazing (though the high end frequencies were cut off).  And we each did it with a microphone on the desk and speakers, and it worked throughout our bedrooms without any of that thumping effect in today's roomwide speakerphones (we didn't have any circuit in there to mute overlapping voices and such).  Since then I have never heard anything anywhere close in quality from any commercially available phone.  Digital is not really much better than analog, and in many cases is worse.  Some ham radio transmissions are better than telephones.

 

I still think it should not matter WHY one finds phone calls inconvenient at all times.  Many people have phones only for the convenience of emergencies.  Wanting to know WHY is something I consider an invasion of privacy.

 

I do enjoy talking to friends and family on the phone.  I hate talking business of any kind.  It's only slightly more convenient to meet in person.  In writing is best, either by email or letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original reason cell phones were disallowed was the high cost even to receive calls.  Most cell plans these days do not impose those costs.  So the collectors have some arguments they can use.

 

I should write to my senators and representative and suggest an amendment.  I'm sure I'd never get the total ban of phone calls in.  But this is my compromise idea:  Debt collectors may NOT call until 30 days AFTER the alleged debtor has received a letter that spells out the debt, the name of the original creditor, the OC account number (people have to be able to look it up in their records), the amount of the original default (to compare against records), the date of default, the date of charge-off, the date of sale or assignment, and the list of all owners since OC.

 

Yes, it is important to contact (alleged) debtors to head off debts getting worse.  That's why they need to send a letter first (and why they need to be strictly in compliance with all laws).

 

And that's why we need a federally mandated SOL (there are ways to make this an interstate issue under federal jurisdiction in most cases) of 2 years to push debt account owners to deal with this quickly.  It's also a boost to the economy when debts get taken care of (whatever way it ends up) quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a good (damned good) reason for collectors to NOT call cell phones ... people might be driving !!

 

Should people have cell phones off while driving?  I say no.  They just should not answer while driving.  Pull over, then talk or text.

 

Write to the debt-collector and tell them ... "phone calls are inconvenient while I am driving".  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the case where it says that most consumers feel debt collection calls are inconvenient, but I don't remember the parties involved.  However, I do have this one:

 

Although a court may consider the "frequency, persistence, and volume of the telephone calls" to determine intent, the mere fact that a call is unwelcome is "insufficient to constitute a violation of the FDCPA." Martin v. Select Portfolio Serving Holding Corp., No. 1:05-cv-273, 2008 WL 618788 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 3, 2008).

 

And in Durthaler v. Accounts Receivable Management, the same OH court stated:

 

"There is no evidence that the calls were made at an inconvenient time or place, that they were made after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they stop, or that they were made after the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he was represented by counsel or a debt management company. While it is clear that the telephone calls made to the Plaintiff were unwelcome, that is simply insufficient to establish a violation of the FDCPA.  As this Court has stated previously, "[a]ny call from a debt collector may be presumed to be unwelcome, but that alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of the FDCPA."

 

However, the above does include "that they were made after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they stop".   Durthaler didn't send a C & D.  He just told them to stop calling.  Would the fact that the court noted that indicate that one could request calls to stop?  Or was the court merely including that with "inconvenient time or place"?

 

Thank you.  It's nice to finally have some case law on this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is no evidence that the calls were made at an inconvenient time or place, that they were made after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they stop, or that they were made after the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he was represented by counsel or a debt management company. While it is clear that the telephone calls made to the Plaintiff were unwelcome, that is simply insufficient to establish a violation of the FDCPA.  As this Court has stated previously, "[a]ny call from a debt collector may be presumed to be unwelcome, but that alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of the FDCPA."

 

However, the above does include "that they were made after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they stop".   Durthaler didn't send a C & D.  He just told them to stop calling.  Would the fact that the court noted that indicate that one could request calls to stop?  Or was the court merely including that with "inconvenient time or place"?

 

The court maybe simply have treated the "do not call" as having no statutory basis, and hence, not binding on the collector.  Durthaler apparently did not inform the collect of what was inconvenient, and hence the collect was in his rights to assume the statutory default.  He should have sent a letter specifically spelling out the statutory keywords saying what times/places were inconvenient.  Once sent and received, then the collector really would have reason (because it said so in the letter) to believe that such times/placers are inconvenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if they sending you letter for more information than its mean they don't have full information about your dispute.You must call them or go their office to provide them complete information.But if you think you send them all information than you must ask a lawyer to proceed it with legal way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if they sending you letter for more information than its mean they don't have full information about your dispute.You must call them or go their office to provide them complete information.But if you think you send them all information than you must ask a lawyer to proceed it with legal way.

The only information you need to provide to the debt collector is just enough to identify which account of theirs is the one they communicated to you in regard to.  Do not provide them with any NEW information.  If they believed that what they know and have is sufficient to start collecting, then that's all they need to have to do their thing.

 

Debt collectors do try to get more information for various reasons.  These could be things like how well off you are financially, and where your money is in case they get a judgment.  They might use this information to decide whether to pursue this as collections, in court, or just drop it.  However, for a DV, none of that information is needed for them to comply with the law.  What the law requires them to respond to a DV request with so they can resume collection efforts is what any debt collector should already have just to start their collection.

 

So give them the account number they state in their letter.  That's all they need to identify which account to pull up the records from.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think if they sending you letter for more information than its mean they don't have full information about your dispute.You must call them or go their office to provide them complete information.But if you think you send them all information than you must ask a lawyer to proceed it with legal way.

 

Your totally off base here. As TORDEN said, only give them the info they have and verify if it's correct or not. Many times they are fishing for more info to make a case against you. If they don't have your SS # or only part of it and you give them the correct one, guess what. The next thing you know they have your complete SS on their records of you. As Torden said why build their case for them? Again, your totally off base here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to answer them at all at this time. The letter they sent asking for more info had my name and account number on it.

I think it is just a fishing expedition. Thanks for all the replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   I sent a DV CMRR on April 1, I recieved a letter from this office saying they had received my dispute

and they needed more information. This letter is dated April 2.

Is this a violation? At the bottom of the letter it says this is an attempt to collect a debt.

 

Based on what you have written,, this is not a violation as they are allowed to acknowledge your dispute.  They are required to have the "this is an attempt to collect a debt." wording, so this, IMHO, would be an extremely weak argument.

 

HOWEVER, if the body of the body of the letter contains the acknowledgement and wording like

  "we need more time to research this, but in the meantime, if you would like to make a payment, then..."

 

Now you have your violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saying they had received my dispute

and they needed more information.

 

Wait a minute.  Please clarify what you mean by "they needed more information."

 

Are they asking YOU for more info or are they needing more info from the OC.

 

the latter is proper, the former is an absolute violation.  They verify and validate with the OC, not you.

 

Too funny if these losers are trying to get YOU to validate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute.  Please clarify what you mean by "they needed more information."

 

Are they asking YOU for more info or are they needing more info from the OC.

 

the latter is proper, the former is an absolute violation.  They verify and validate with the OC, not you.

 

Too funny if these losers are trying to get YOU to validate. 

 

How would it be a violation?  I'm NOT saying it isn't.  But how would it be deceptive or unfair?  Is there any court precedent related to the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter states   : Dear Miss XXXXX,

                               Our office has received notification of your dispute regarding the above mentioned account.

For us to address this this concern, we will need more information about the nature of your dispute.

Please contact our office at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

                                     Sincerely, xxxxx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're asking for the nature of your dispute.  There's more than one kind of dispute.  Disputing the debt in terms of a debt validation (DV letter) means you dispute that the possibility that the debt is valid, the CA has the correct person, amount, etc.  There's also credit reporting disputes.  Credit reporting disputes are not debt validation requests.  They have to do with inaccuracies on your credit report.

 

How did you word your original dispute to the CA? 

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.