Jump to content

Did CA violate FDCPA


credithelp2013
 Share

Recommended Posts

Today a CA left a voicemail on my answering machine. The person that called never stated that they were a collection agency and did not read the mini Miranda statement. The person identified himself by name and said he was with ___ Law Group and stated they were looking for me and if anyone at this number had any information of my whereabouts please return his call. He stated that this was an important business matter, but never stated that he was collecting a debt. I have seen the Law group mentioned on this and other boards and they usually work for CA's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today a CA left a voicemail on my answering machine. The person that called never stated that they were a collection agency and did not read the mini Miranda statement. The person identified himself by name and said he was with ___ Law Group and stated they were looking for me and if anyone at this number had any information of my whereabouts please return his call. He stated that this was an important business matter, but never stated that he was collecting a debt. I have seen the Law group mentioned on this and other boards and they usually work for CA's.

 

That's about all they're allowed to say if they looking for you. If you had answered the phone they most likely would have given you the mini-miranda.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't illegal for a law group to be looking for you.  While it most likely IS a debt collection issue there are other legal reasons for a lawyer to be looking for someone.  

 

I once had one track me down asking if I was related to someone who had passed away and had a small estate.  Given that they only said they were looking for you and not why I doubt it is a violation because they have the defense it could be for ANY reason they are seeking you and they didn't say why in the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what they always say, its not a violation.

 

No it isn't but there has to be some balance against those who believe EVERYTHING a collection agency does is a violation.  

 

The reality is it is NOT a violation of FDCPA to be looking for someone.  Nor is it illegal to call and leave a message saying you are trying to find the person.  Until they reveal the reason  you are assuming it is nefarious and until they actually say it is for a debt in a way that violates the law it isn't a FDCPA issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was clearly an attempt to contact me regarding an alleged debt as I received a collection letter from the same law group and it was signed off by the same person who identified himself by leaving his name on my answering machine. Based solely on the assumption that the contact was made regarding an alleged credit card debt would it be now be considered a violation?

 

As I have written documentation showing they are attempting to collect a debt from me it would seem that it would be hard for them to now claim they were contacting me for another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't say that they had contacted you before.

 

Because it appears that defendant's messages are "communications" subjecting defendant to the provisions of § 1692e(11), it also appears that defendant has violated § 1692e(11) because the messages do not convey the information required by § 1692e(11), in particular, that the messages were from a debt collector.  Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assoc., Inc., 387 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1116 (C.D.Cal.2005).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It "may" be a violation.  It depends on ones interpretation and any controlling authority in your jurisdiction.

 

I will say this, it is not a case most attorney's would take.  One letter, one vague phone call - that isn't enough.  You get a bad name filing upon allegations such as those and with fee shifting now under the FDCPA, you can harm your own clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with BV80, and think it's violation of 1692d(6). In "Koby v. ARS" (S.D. Calif 2010), the court quoted both "Hosseinzadeh" and Costa v. National Action Financial  Services," (E.D, Calif. 2007), finding  ARS liable for violating 1692d(6), saying, "These district courts have held that meaningful disclosure requires that the caller state his name and capacity and provide enough information so as not to mislead the reciepient as to the purpose of the call." 

 

But I would agree with TN Lawyer and WTC that it is hard to find a lawyer to take on what some consider to be a technical violation of the FDCPA.   Try www.goldencardona.com  ( a Calif law firm) or www.attorneysforconsumers.com ( a nationwide law firm)  for an evaluation.

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.