CA pulling out the stops

IC Anonymous · 08-17-2007, 02:19 PM

I have a new CA handling multiple accounts from the same OC. The multiple accounts were from different OC's but after all the buy outs and merges over the years they've become the same OC . I just received dunning letters for the different accounts from the CA. I was going to mail the DV's on Monday, but it looks like I'll make it my business to do it today.

The CA has been leaving the usual annoying messages. I just got a buzz from the receptionist that the guy who wrote the dunning letters is here to see me. At work.

I told the receptionist that I am NOT here. Then I checked my VM and the CA left a message that he needed to speak to me about all of my accounts and apparent fraudulent activity. I assume that he is trying to scare me. In his previous messages, he has said that I need to speak to him by the end of the day, because they need to move forward on the case. It seems that he is just short of implying that he is going to sue me at the end of the day, which we all know that he can't do cause the dunning letter isn't thirty days old.

With the past two CA's I have asked for DV, but I have never received it other than copies of old statements.

Do I need to do anything other than send out the usual DV, CMRRR? The CA's visit to my office has gotten my attention. I'm spooked.

IC Anonymous · 08-17-2007, 02:31 PM

I miss understood the receptionist. When she said "looking for you" I thought that she meant that the CA was physically here. I just called to check with her and she said that he was only on the phone. I'm still sending out the DV's today.

Why do we put in the letters that it is inconvenient to call my anywhere at anytime? If we are asking for validation pursuant to FDCPA, shouldn't they know that they can't call? And if they do call before they can provide validation, aren't they racking up violations?

jlynn · 08-17-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC Anonymous

I miss understood the receptionist. When she said "looking for you" I thought that she meant that the CA was physically here. I just called to check with her and she said that he was only on the phone. I'm still sending out the DV's today.

Why do we put in the letters that it is inconvenient to call my anywhere at anytime? If we are asking for validation pursuant to FDCPA, shouldn't they know that they can't call? And if they do call before they can provide validation, aren't they racking up violations?

Well yes, if they call and attempt collection after VOD receipt, and before validating its a violation - but, if they do provide validation, you will then definitely want all communications in written form otherwise you will be on their speed dial list.

Further, I would specifically indicate you can't receive calls at work, since you are. Never hurts to spell things out.

roybean · 08-17-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC Anonymous

I miss understood the receptionist. When she said "looking for you" I thought that she meant that the CA was physically here. I just called to check with her and she said that he was only on the phone. I'm still sending out the DV's today.

Why do we put in the letters that it is inconvenient to call my anywhere at anytime? If we are asking for validation pursuant to FDCPA, shouldn't they know that they can't call? And if they do call before they can provide validation, aren't they racking up violations?

See 15 USC 1692c(a)(1):

(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;

If you notify them that it is an inconvenience to call at any time or place and they continue to call....it's a violation.

E. Normis Debtor · 08-17-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC Anonymous

It seems that he is just short of implying that he is going to sue me at the end of the day, which we all know that he can't do cause the dunning letter isn't thirty days old.

Actually, they can file suit during the thirty validation period if you haven't yet notified them of your dispute.

15 U.S.C. 1692g(b) Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed....

VexatiousLitigant · 08-17-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E. Normis Debtor

Actually, they can file suit during the thirty validation period if you haven't yet notified them of your dispute.

15 U.S.C. 1692g(b) Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed....

E is here!

drivel · 08-17-2007, 04:22 PM

Yes I am

jlynn · 08-17-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drivel

Yes I am

Yep, the one and only.

Pale Rider · 08-17-2007, 07:10 PM

1 I agree that the 30 day period is not a grace period and they can file suit if no dispute is in place.

2 Besides the "inconvenient to call", the FDCPA specifically spells out they cannot call at your place of employment if they know that you are not allowed to accept personal calls there.

I put this in every letter to cover all bases:

"Also, be advised that since you have my correct address above, there is no reason for you to contact family or neighbors for location purposes. I am not allowed to take personal calls at work, and it is inconvenient to take phone calls at any time. I will correspond with you by first class mail through the US Postal Service only......"