SophieB

Revoking prior consent for cell phone & new CA

Recommended Posts

Hello --

I am now on my 3rd collection agency for the same debt.  In my previous communication with a prior collection agency, I have revoked prior consent to use my cell phone number, which they respected (I'm not exactly sure how the original creditor got my cell phone number in the first place, but whatever -- revoking it in writing worked).  However, I am now getting numerous calls to my cell phone from this new collection agency.  Do I have to keep revoking prior consent with each new collection agency?  I thought that if I did it once, it would stay on my file and I would not have to explicitly keep revoking it.  The original creditor has remained the same.  

I have to send them a debt validation letter anyway so I can include language revoking consent, but it's annoying that my cell phone is going to keep ringing incessantly until they receive the letter.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.  Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the revocation of calls to your cellphone to the Owner of the debt.  If you do not each different collection agency can drop it and have it assigned to another. Always DV the alleged account owner and not the collection agency. Send it Cmrr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem comes in when the debt gets sold to a new JDB. The old JDB does not pass that information on to the new JDB so it is like starting new again. I have had a landline phone number for 12 years now and I still get collection calls for the person who had this number previously. I am waiting for August so I can have some real fun with them because that is when the person's judgements expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, however, I dealt with LVNV in the old days. You'd send a cease comm to one cA and LVNV would promptly send it to another ad nausem.... Then I sent a cease comm to LVNV directly to the home office.... That was the only way to stop it. I agree with you though but it sounds like the same JDB or OC and being farmed around to other CAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Credithis said:

Send the revocation of calls to your cellphone to the Owner of the debt.  If you do not each different collection agency can drop it and have it assigned to another. Always DV the alleged account owner and not the collection agency. Send it Cmrr.

When receiving an initial communication from a collection agency that is collecting for a JDB, you have to DV the collection agency because it is the one making the communication.   You can DV the JDB, but it doesn't have to respond because it didn't send the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BV80, we had this discussion many years ago. LVNV did this notoriously, I sent DVs cmrr to 3 different CAs collecting for them. Then sent a cease comm to LVNV because they would always farm it out to another CA.  Now, the OP stated they were calling his cell phone, he wants it to stop... Getting the JDB involved is necessary to get TCPA violations.....  To stop the continued collection a cease comm is needed to be sent to whoever "owns" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Credithis said:

Hi BV80, we had this discussion many years ago. LVNV did this notoriously, I sent DVs cmrr to 3 different CAs collecting for them. Then sent a cease comm to LVNV because they would always farm it out to another CA.  Now, the OP stated they were calling his cell phone, he wants it to stop... Getting the JDB involved is necessary to get TCPA violations.....  To stop the continued collection a cease comm is needed to be sent to whoever "owns" it.

I agree with your comments about a C&D and the TCPA.   My comment was in regard to whom to send a debt validation request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, love you and your posts but I believe if you send a DV to a JDB you "cut out" the middleman, in this case, the CA. I have seen no case law addressing this. It would be interesting to see the response.... Say the JDB keeps assigning the alleged debt to CA after CA and each CA was sent a DV and did not respond... You then (As I did) send it directly to the JDB.... What would be their response? I think they would be facing possible FDCPA sanctions if they assign it to another CA if they don't reply with the validation......  Interesting topic... I believe they would be breaking federal law if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Credithis said:

Sorry, love you and your posts but I believe if you send a DV to a JDB you "cut out" the middleman, in this case, the CA. I have seen no case law addressing this. It would be interesting to see the response.... Say the JDB keeps assigning the alleged debt to CA after CA and each CA was sent a DV and did not respond... You then (As I did) send it directly to the JDB.... What would be their response? I think they would be facing possible FDCPA sanctions if they assign it to another CA if they don't reply with the validation......  Interesting topic... I believe they would be breaking federal law if they do.

While the collection agency may send the letter on behalf of the JDB, the collection agency is the party who sent the communication. 

1692g(a)(5) of the FDCPA.

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

The current creditor would be the JDB.  It is not necessarily the party who made the initial communication.  To date, there is no court ruling that says a DV request should be sent to any party other than the one who sent the initial communication.  There would need to be rulings that show that an initial communication made by one party (collection agency) on behalf of another party (JDB) is the same as if it came directly from the JDB.

The closest ruling I can find in Robinson v. Sherman Financial Group, LLC (ED TN 2013).

"As noted by the LVNV Defendants, throughout the collection efforts Hosto acted on behalf of LVNV as counsel, and when counsel made the "initial communication" with Plaintiff, the requisite § 1692g notice was included. That LVNV was the plaintiff in the state court case does not change the fact that it was still represented by Hosto who sent out the communication, and Hosto had previously included the requisite § 1692g notice in its first communication with Plaintiff.

The court noted that Hosto sent the communication, not LVNV.

Do you know of any such rulings that show an initial communication sent by one party is also an initial communication from the party on whose behalf it was sent?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing in the above that would preclude sending it to the JDB. A Trial attorney would probably have fun with this. See, LVNV is already listed as a debt collector and they have pursed debts by themselves in the past. So has others such as Midland.....  Would indeed be interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Credithis said:

I see nothing in the above that would preclude sending it to the JDB. A Trial attorney would probably have fun with this. See, LVNV is already listed as a debt collector and they have pursed debts by themselves in the past. So has others such as Midland.....  Would indeed be interesting...

As  I stated, you can send a DV to the JDB, but you would bear the burden of proving your claims and doing so with no supporting case law.  

It would also depend upon the court where one might bring such an action due to the SCOTUS ruling in Henson v. Santander and the fact that some courts have ruled that debt buyers collecting their own debts are not subject to the FDCPA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the OP ran into my situation with LVNV. I sent Prompt DVs to each CA cmrr. After the 3rd CA I did the same cmrr to LVNV. Now, the 1st CA did not assign it to another company, LVNV had to. So, does LVNV violate the FDCPA by assigning it again to another CA knowing a DV was sent to the 1st? This would trigger a "continued collection" action as per the FDCPA. Actually, when I threatened LVNV I brought this up.... They dropped it.  This is what the OP is facing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Credithis said:

Well, the OP ran into my situation with LVNV. I sent Prompt DVs to each CA cmrr. After the 3rd CA I did the same cmrr to LVNV. Now, the 1st CA did not assign it to another company, LVNV had to. So, does LVNV violate the FDCPA by assigning it again to another CA knowing a DV was sent to the 1st? This would trigger a "continued collection" action as per the FDCPA. Actually, when I threatened LVNV I brought this up.... They dropped it.  This is what the OP is facing...

The JDB who did not send the collection letter would argue that it did not make the initial communication  and no right to validation was triggered by the JDB.   Since it did not send an initial communication, it was not required to validate and not required to cease collection activity.

Also, I know of no court rulings that say an account cannot be reassigned to another collection agency when one collection ceases collecting instead of validating.

You're basically saying that one initial communication constitutes an initial communication from more than one party (both the collection agency and JDB creditor).  Again, there would need to be case law that says an initial communication sent by a collection agency on behalf of a debt buyer is the same as if the debt buyer personally sent the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the whack the mole concept is in play. I believe and would argue since the JDB knew it was avoiding through a loophole the spirit of the law and they would be liable. Also, since they hire the CA, they are jointly and severally liable for deliberate continued debt collection in a manner that is avoiding the FDCPA.

 

I find it odd that today this practice is still in play. LVNV was most notorious for it. I had enough saved DV letters and correspondence with it's CAs to threaten legal action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Credithis said:

Then the whack the mole concept is in play. I believe and would argue since the JDB knew it was avoiding through a loophole the spirit of the law and they would be liable. Also, since they hire the CA, they are jointly and severally liable for deliberate continued debt collection in a manner that is avoiding the FDCPA.

 

I find it odd that today this practice is still in play. LVNV was most notorious for it. I had enough saved DV letters and correspondence with it's CAs to threaten legal action.

 

You can argue anything you want, but where's the case law to support it? 

Debts are eventually time-barred.  That's when you can send the JDB a C&D.  At that point, the JDB must drop it all together and decide whether or not to sell the debt.  But it can't keep reassigning the debt to other collection agencies to collect on its behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are saying if the OP sent a cease comm to the JDB... They are not violating the law by continuing to collect on it? I'd Still have the OP sent a cease comm to the JDB.. and certainly about the cellphone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Credithis said:

So, you are saying if the OP sent a cease comm to the JDB... They are not violating the law by continuing to collect on it? I'd Still have the OP sent a cease comm to the JDB.. and certainly about the cellphone.

If the OP sent a C&D to the JDB, the JDB could not continue to collect.   A C&D is not a DV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the responses.  My only communication has been written (in the form of DVs) and only with the collection agencies.

In my DVs, I include this line: "I also revoke any prior consent to call my cell phone for any reason."  I am not interested in sending a Cease & Desist for all communication because I actually like to receive written communication from the CAs (I have received some strange correspondence  that I think may be helpful to me when I eventually get sued). 

It's just that the numerous cell phone calls are annoying and I was hoping that when my account moves from CA to CA, they would pass along all my communication and they would take note that prior consent to call my cell phone has been revoked.  I guess that isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.