Jump to content

TCPA & Voip residential lines


Recommended Posts

My servicer has been using another company to make robocalls to me after I revoked consent. I see a lot of cases with cell phones but does any one have case laws against creditors calling to Voip residential lines?

 

I have come across cases where the creditor is still held liable even if they used an agent to make the calls.

In this case, I believe the ruling was that both creditor and agent were liable (since there was never express consent given to the agent, and since EC was revoked from the creditor).

 

Anyone have any thoughts/ideas/case laws?

Thanks so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Servicer?  As in mortgage servicer?  Not sure what you mean...

 

But...unless you are charged by the minute for use of VOIP, I don't think it fits in the same category as cell phones.  In actuality, these days, even those who get there phone service from traditional land line companies have their "long distance" travel over the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it my mortgage servicer. The phone # was provided in the refi papers (filed with the HSBC). HSBC then transferred servicing to my current servicer. I wrote to them to revoke consent to calling my phone. They stopped robo calling me directly, but got their 3rd party agent to make robo calls (Level 3 Communications). I think that makes a case for knowing/willful calls

 

Unfortunately, it's not a per-call charge from my Voip. However, my internet service is connected by a radio transmission (I know, complicated!).

 

I found a case but I'm kind of confused since they mention a conflicting case:

 

Lynn v Monarch Recovery

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13636746856822407240&q=Lynn+v.+Monarch+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,6

 

 

"Second, Monarch asserts that "no court" has held that calls to home phones are "subject" to the TCPA's call charged provision "simply because the phones are `attached' to VoIP equipment or technology," ECF No. 42 at 11, and states that one court has held to the contrary, id. In support, Monarch cites Daniel v. West Asset Management, Inc., No. 11-10034, 2011 WL 3207790 (E.D. Mich. July 27, 2011), in which the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of an order dismissing her TCPA claims under the residential telephone line provision, on the grounds that she used "internet telephony." Id. at *2. The court denied the motion, noting that "there is no indication that the internet telephony service is a `paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call' under 47 U.S.C. § 227 (B) (1) (A) (iii)." Id. Daniel is not binding on this Court. Further, the decision does not indicate whether the "internet telephony" at issue resulted in charges for the incoming calls. See id. Here, it is undisputed that it did.

Monarch's third and fourth theories are related. Specifically, Monarch argues that Lynn "has not shown and cannot show that his use of VoIP service or technology fundamentally changed the nature of his residential telephone line to which Monarch made calls." ECF No. 42 at 11; id. at 12 ("[T]here is no practical distinction between a traditional residential telephone line and a residential telephone line with attached VoIP technology or service."). "In short, plaintiff's residential telephone line was set up and used like any typical home phone, and so it is appropriately governed by the TCPA residential telephone line provision and the FCC exemptions enacted thereunder." Id. at 12."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Level 3 Communications from what I google, is a carrier, not a 3rd party collector.  I'm still confused.

 

And, while you may be able to tell your servicer to take your name off their "boy, have we got an deal for you" list, I don't think you can tell them to NOT call you if they're trying to collect.

 

So...I guess I'd need more information before I should offer an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know the calls are from your telecom server? Why would a communications provider be calling you as a collection company?

 

Congress has found that unwanted calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy. 47 U.S.C. § 227 gives a consumer three claims, 1) calls to cell phones, 2) calls to residential lines, and 3) calls to numbers registered on the “Do Not Call List.”

 

"They: The makers of the Constitution: conferred,
as against the government, the right to be let alone --
the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized men."

Justice Louis D. Brandeis

 

"The right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms." -- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

 

Every court in this nation recognizes that we as citizens enjoy the right to be left alone. If we revoke a persons right to call us because we want to enjoy our privacy and our right to be left alone there are only two things a person can do once informed that we want to be left alone,,,they can comply and leave us alone, or they can violate our natural rights and end up in court.

 

You can revoke consent to be called, even with the original creditor. 

 

Gager vs Dell Financial Services, LLC The original court found that once a number was given to a creditor consent was for the life of the debt, but upon appeal the appeals court reversed the decision olding that a person can revoke consent at any time. The court based its decision on three factors.

1) Under common law a person can revoke any type of consent at any time he/she so pleases.

2) Any ambiguity in the TCPA should be resolved in favor of the consumer.

3) An FCC decision on another topic suggested revocation is possible.

 

The court also stated that there is nothing that would prohibit a creditor from continuing to call short of a cease and desist letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks everyone. The Gager case I believe was in the 3rd District. I believe CO is the 11th(?) District. Would the 3rd District's ruling affect cases in CO?

I understand that the OC can continue to call, even after you ask them to cease. However, then the TCPA's express consent is now revoked (assuming it can be revoked). So they cannot robocall to a residential line under the TCPA. I'm hoping this is the case.

 

I believe my mortgage servicer enlisted the services of Level 3 Communications to make robocalls on their behalf. When I told them to contact me only in writing, they stopped robocalling me. However, they continued to robocall me via L3C. I'm not sure if there are case laws about this.

 

I know there are cases where the company was held responsible for their agent's robocalls but that was for telemarketing purposes.

 

I know the calls come from L3C because I traced the # to them from whocalled.us. However their robo messages all reference my home loan #. ie, the calls state" [sillymonkey] please call 1800xxxx and reference account #xxxxxxx]

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.