Jump to content

Illegal Debt Coll Calls


Recommended Posts

IF A DEBT COLLECTOR CALLS, THEY MUST GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION OR THEY CAN BE SUED FOR VIOLATING THE FDCPA.  THIS IS FROM "KENEKO V. LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT CIGNARALE,"  (W.D. N.C. JULY 10, 2013).

C. Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6) and 1692e(11) regarding disclosure

 

Telephone calls require a meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity. 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6). Debt collectors must also disclose in every communication that the communication is from a debt collector. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). Meaningful disclosure requires the debt collector "to disclose the caller's name, the debt collection company's name, and the nature of the debt collector's business." Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., No. 11-2824, 2013 WL 1247815, at *10 (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2013) (quoting Baker v. Allstate Fin. Servs., Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 945, 949 (D. Minn. 2008)). Here, the voicemail contained the caller's name, "Ms. Robinson," and the debt collection company's name, "The Law Office of Vincent Cignarale."

However, the voicemail did not portray the nature of the debt collector's business. For instance, in Baker, the debt collector's representatives called the debtor, identified themselves by name, and stated they worked for "Allstate." 554 F. Supp. 2d at 950. The court in Baker ruled that providing the company's name was not sufficient to portray the nature of the business. Id. Similarly, in the current case, Ms. Robinson, an employee, indicated she worked for "The Law Office of Vincent Cignarale." Simply providing the name of the business does not necessarily portray the nature of the business, therefore, Defendant failed to provide meaningful disclosure under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6).

In addition, all communications must indicate that the communication is from a debt collector that is attempting to collect debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). Furthermore, the debt collector must indicate that any "information obtained will be used for that purpose . . . ." Id.; see also Schwarm v. Craighead, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1081 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Here, Defendant did not indicate that it was attempting to collect debt or that any information obtained would be used to collect debt. Defendant only stated that a claim was filed in its office. Therefore, without a clear indication that the claim filed was an attempt to collect debt, a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) occurred.

 

D

 

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.