[Qtip]

Ok in the past the consensus has been that a debt collector leaving a collection notice on an answering machine is asking to be sued.

I have a friend where a collector leaves a message stating that they are a collection agency and are looking for my friend. Is this a violation, they do not state account number or amount owed they simply leave a message stating that they are a collection agency looking for "XYZ" person.

[jlynn]

Gosh, I'm getting rusty, but there has been some new case law that has come down on this sort of stuff. I think plaintiff was Foti.

Not saying what you stated is legal or illegal, but I think consensus may be changing.

[Enigma]

If they used the words "collection agency", then it is a violation.

[Pale Rider]

I have had some wrong number calls recently that said "we are required by law to inform you we are a collection agency..."

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

I have had some wrong number calls recently that said "we are required by law to inform you we are a collection agency..."

Journal of Technology Law & Policy : Home

Another United States District Court case, Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assoc., Inc. [12], expanded Joseph by holding that automated messages constitute “communications” for purposes of the FDCPA. There, the plaintiff received six automated messages on her answering machine by the defendant debt collector.[13] Like Joseph, Hosseinzadeh involved § 1692d(6) of the FDCPA, and the court found that the automated messages violated the statute.[14] The plaintiff in Hosseinzadeh also alleged that the debt collector violated § 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, which prohibits a debt collector from using “any false representation or deceptive means” to collect a debt[15] by using an alias in its pre-recorded messages.[16] In other words, the debt collector identified in the defendant’s pre-recorded messages was not an actual person who worked for the debt collection agency. The court, however, did not decide this issue, stating that it was a question of fact for the factfinder.[17] Furthermore, the plaintiff in Hosseinzadeh asserted that the defendant violated § 1692e(11) of the FDCPA, which requires a debt collector to disclose that the collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information gathered will be used for that purpose.[18] While the defendant argued that the automated messages did not constitute “communications” under the FDCPA, the court disagreed and held that the automated messages left on the plaintiff’s answering machine were “communications” under the FDCPA.[19] Thus, the Hosseinzadeh court went a step further than the Joseph court by expressly holding that an automated message is a “communication” for purposes of the FDCPA.

[Pale Rider]

In my case, it was also a third party disclosure violation.

[Qtip]

Thanks for the info, my friend will be happy to hear this!!!

[ilovemydogs]

Originally Posted by Enigma

If they used the words "collection agency", then it is a violation.

How 'bout we are debt collectors
What would be the violation?
Thanks
ILMD

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by ilovemydogs

How 'bout we are debt collectors
What would be the violation?
Thanks
ILMD

I believe it to be a violation.

[scelestic practitioner]

Originally Posted by ilovemydogs

How 'bout we are debt collectors
What would be the violation?
Thanks
ILMD

The foti catch is that the law requires all communications to inform that it's from a debt collector and foti held answering machine messages are communications.

This puts collectors in a catch 22. Answering machine messages can cause third party disclosures. So to answer Ilovemydogs, the violation is the third party disclosure (if in fact there was one).

When a collector leaves a bunch of answering machine messages, without advising the communication is from a debt collector, the debt collector can be on the hook for a lot more violations/class action, than one who gives the notice to a single person where a third party may or may not hear it.

The debt collector has to decide whether to continue using the dialer/message equipment at the risk of a third party disclosure. It boils down to a financial risk calculation, nothing more.

[E. Normis Debtor]

Couple of points.

A debt collector attempting to collect a debt that you owe cannot commit 3rd party disclosure by identifying themselves as a debt collector in a message left on your answering machine. No matter who hears the message.

If you receive a message on your answering machine from a debt collector identifying themselves as such attempting to collect on someone else's debt, though it may constitute 3rd party disclosure, you have no standing to sue.

[Pale Rider]

Originally Posted by E. Normis Debtor

If you receive a message on your answering machine from a debt collector identifying themselves as such attempting to collect on someone else's debt, though it may constitute 3rd party disclosure, you have no standing to sue.

I agree, but if I knew the person involved I wouild contact them so that they could sue. Some sites will tell you that no 3rd party ever has the right to sue for any violation, even after being shown several cases that were successful in that. I was just pointing out the technical violations, even though they don't amount to much.

[ilovemydogs]

Originally Posted by Qtip

Ok in the past the consensus has been that a debt collector leaving a collection notice on an answering machine is asking to be sued.

I have a friend where a collector leaves a message stating that they are a collection agency and are looking for my friend. Is this a violation, they do not state account number or amount owed they simply leave a message stating that they are a collection agency looking for "XYZ" person.

Right now I have a case against a JDB basically because of what they left.
MY message was ..
that this message is for me and they are debt collectors.
ILMD

[ilovemydogs]

Originally Posted by E. Normis Debtor

Couple of points.

A debt collector attempting to collect a debt that you owe cannot commit 3rd party disclosure by identifying themselves as a debt collector in a message left on your answering machine. No matter who hears the message.

If you receive a message on your answering machine from a debt collector identifying themselves as such attempting to collect on someone else's debt, though it may constitute 3rd party disclosure, you have no standing to sue.

How about if the answering machine they left it on was not in your name?
As for leaving the message ,when I clicked it on toplay message others heard it,and this is one of the things I am suing about.
I will let you know what happens, as you are saying that there would be no standing on such.
I hope you are wrong. <sigh>
ILMD

[Pale Rider]

ILMD,

He was saying that if I hear a message about a collection that has your name on it, I don't have standing to sue.

IMO, it would technically be a violation of 3rd party disclosure that you could sue for. But, I have no violation to sue for, because I was not harmed by hearing your name and that you have a collection. If they harassed or threatened me in some way, then possibly I could sue.

[ilovemydogs]

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

ILMD,

He was saying that if I hear a message about a collection that has your name on it, I don't have standing to sue.

IMO, it would technically be a violation of 3rd party disclosure that you could sue for. But, I have no violation to sue for, because I was not harmed by hearing your name and that you have a collection. If they harassed or threatened me in some way, then possibly I could sue.

Thanks for clarifying this to me, as I have a suit right now about this .
I am wondering though if a debt collector can leave a message on a machine that technically is not under your name?
IE Spouses name and no mention of me on the account,but debt collectors calls and leaves a message for me.
ILMD