Creditor harrassment

[annajosie]

Hi Chein, enjoyed your comments.

naw, I'm not irritated by the dog stories and I don't remember the sex scandal.

I was just making a point to the debt collector. When a collector calls a zillion times a day, it can be annoying and one way to stop it is to file bankruptcy. Kind of like hitting a fly with a bazooka.

 

[Amerikaner]

Chien -

Thank you for the welcome. I am a regular at another board such as this, and I appreciate a good debate that does not turn ugly. I can understand the "debtor stonewalling" point, but I have to respectfully disagree (or rather explain my point a bit further): I am coming from the point that if the collector knows that the person is there...just not answering the phone because the consumer wants to communicate in writing instead of over the phone - for whatever reason - then the every 5 minutes thing would, IMO, apply as a violation simply becuase it could be successfully argued that the collector "didn't like" the debtor's wishes to keep communication to the written form only; thus that is where the intent changes. Perhaps I wan't clear enough in my last post. I'm assuming at this point that the collector knows the debtor wants to keep communications in writing...then the repeated 5 minute phone calls would be harassment

DebtCollector -

Yes, you are absolutely right. The FDCPA does cut both ways. And don't get me wrong - I don't believe that a consumer who legitimately owes a debt should not hide behind technical violations of this law or that statute. However - there are unscrupulous debt collection agencies who operate as if the laws were meant to be broken. That's where the consumer protections afforded by such laws rightfully come into play.

Do you agree with me that on both sides of the debtor/collector fence there are those who don't play by the rules?

 

[TigerD]

I'm assuming at this point that the collector knows the debtor wants to keep communications in writing...then the repeated 5 minute phone calls would be harassment
The other assumption you make is that the debtor has a right to only written communication -- they don't.

Do you agree with me that on both sides of the debtor/collector fence there are those who don't play by the rules?

There are bad apples in every field. However, for an industry with trillions of customer contacts every year to generate only 70,000 complaints -- which the government freely admits includes many nuisance complaints -- demonstrates that true bad apples are extremely rare.

DC

 

[Amerikaner]

The other assumption you make is that the debtor has a right to only written communication -- they don't.

Actually the debtor does. The FDCPA states that the collector is not allowed to call the debtor at "inconvenient times"...

(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;

So in essence - if the collector knows that debtor doesn't want to be called...that it is inconvenient for debtor to be called (if he has a cell phone for example...as he gets charged for incoming calls..and most times a CR will not show if a phone number is a cell or not)...then they do. All I would have to do is tell you "Debt collector, It's inconvenient for me to talk to you over the phone - as such please restrict all communications to writing."

 

[Debt Guy]

All I would have to do is tell you "Debt collector, It's inconvenient for me to talk to you over the phone - as such please restrict all communications to writing."

I've never seen a consumer/debtor make that concept stick. It is just too far a stretch of common sense. Judges are not idiots.​

 

[Chien]

(Ok AJ – if you don’t remember the useless husband and the implants, I won’t remind you, but when it comes to BK, I think DC’s analogy to nuking your own town is even more apt than the bazooka.)

Ahh, just when I was preparing to agree to disagree and move on, another favored poster gets sucked in. Amerikaner, I have to keep this short (and my posts will prove that’s hard for me), but I have to agree with both DC and DG, and I’m confident that your argument doesn’t fly in court. I looked for cases on point and found none, but I’m open to any that you have to offer.

Note that the section defines “convenient” in terms of time and not expense, and it hasn’t been amended. The FDCPA pre-dated the expansive use of cell phones and didn’t and doesn’t consider them a factor. I get to call you until a cease and desist. If you choose a cell as the only medium, that’s your choice and not my problem. (In my own practice, I deal with contractors who only use cells – and while driving – I wish they wouldn’t – I’d rather be guilty of some violation than contribute to a death by collision.)

No calls at midnight or 4:00 AM – fine. No calls because of expense or because you just don’t want calls and want letters? No, I don’t think so, and I’d try the test case and take the appeal, if necessary, on that one. Until the law says I can’t call, if you don’t want it – period, full stop, I can call. And it doesn’t impose a duty to read minds.

(I have no doubt that you contribute much to your other forum, but I think I can one-up you: this year, I was encouraged by members to join both NACA and NARCA. That’s a combo that’s hard to top.) Later, because I want to append.

 

[debtwhodebt]

hummm!!

Seems to me DC and Chien there are some of the nice, JDB's and lawyers that want to take what someone has all to pad their own pockets, people like this have their own opinions and that is all fine and well, but how many times has a customer came to the JDB and tried to make minimal amounts of payments that THEY THE DEBTOR can afford, NOT what the JDB wants! I think that if someone wants to be contacted ONLY by writing then SO BE IT, BTW incase you all forgot your goal is try to get the money, ever heard that u can get more bees with HONEY than vinegar? Also it is very disruptive to have phone calls one right after another, ALSO DC, you tend to forget how many times the JDB's call someone EVEN AFTER they have TALKED TO SOMEONE IN THE SAME DAY ,in the SAME FIRM! Now that is harrassment right there.. And we don't bring that up in these conversations DO WE? Now you have to own up, how many times your flunkies have called the same people over a period of 1 day? Come on post that! Didn't think no one would post that because they know it is true. We normally don't IGNORE the phones from debt, we ignore the MEAN, RUDE comments that people like you and LAWYERS like CHIEN say to us, you also make mention to people as DEADBEATS? Hum, ever had a heart complication? Ever had a mental health problem? Well there are a TON of people in this world that has and they can't help what happens to them!! I can't believe you would get on this board and call people DEADBEATS, people like you need sued and believe me, if someone can sue the crap out of mcdonalds for making their kid fat or spilling hot coffee on themselves then you better believe you can be sued for less! Why can't you JDB's be nice to people? I bet you would settle way more than what you settle now with those RUDE little gestures that you send out to people, or tell people on the PHONE!
"from the sig line"
DC
__________________
I am a Professional Debt Collector. <-------- HA HA HA HA, that is the funniest thing I have ever read! Maybe you can one day realize that people do have feelings and they try to pay stuff, and I would NEVER refer to SOMEONE OR SOMETHING AS A DEADBEAT, even if it is in gest that is DOWN RIGHT RUDE! Post the name of your business that you own or work for! That way when we call you, we can say HEY DEADBEAT! DC people like you only want a MASSIVE AMOUNT of FEES, along with A TON OF INTEREST and to RUIN PEOPLE'S LIFES! We know you pay minimal for these debts or you act like your life has never had a problem! People like you and chien have not seem anything yet, as consumers get more educated in dealing with JDB's and Other collection agencies and lawyers then we will fight back with a IRON FIST that will leave you STUNNED!!!!!

 

[Amerikaner]

Ahh, just when I was preparing to agree to disagree and move on, another favored poster gets sucked in. Amerikaner, I have to keep this short (and my posts will prove that’s hard for me), but I have to agree with both DC and DG, and I’m confident that your argument doesn’t fly in court. I looked for cases on point and found none, but I’m open to any that you have to offer.

Note that the section defines “convenient” in terms of time and not expense, and it hasn’t been amended. The FDCPA pre-dated the expansive use of cell phones and didn’t and doesn’t consider them a factor. I get to call you until a cease and desist. If you choose a cell as the only medium, that’s your choice and not my problem. (In my own practice, I deal with contractors who only use cells – and while driving – I wish they wouldn’t – I’d rather be guilty of some violation than contribute to a death by collision.)

No calls at midnight or 4:00 AM – fine. No calls because of expense or because you just don’t want calls and want letters? No, I don’t think so, and I’d try the test case and take the appeal, if necessary, on that one. Until the law says I can’t call, if you don’t want it – period, full stop, I can call. And it doesn’t impose a duty to read minds.

I appreciate your style of debate, Chien. I'd like to meet you one day - but not necessarily in the courtroom. That being said - I will agree to disaree with you, for several reasons. I know the FDCPA pre-dated cell phones, and I would be an idiot to not know the push the debt collection industry is making to amend the FDCPA for cell phones.

(I have no doubt that you contribute much to your other forum, but I think I can one-up you: this year, I was encouraged by members to join both NACA and NARCA. That’s a combo that’s hard to top.) Later, because I want to append.

That is indeed a combo that is hard to top - and I congratulate you for it. I think those who can see (and subsequently argue) both sides of any issue deserve credit for it. Perhaps soon you may see me siding with you on an issue. I can see that as being quite likely as a matter of fact - just probably not likely with regard to the subject matter being discussed in this thread

 

[TigerD]

I know the FDCPA pre-dated cell phones, and I would be an idiot to not know the push the debt collection industry is making to amend the FDCPA for cell phones.

I am also interested see the outcome of a court battle over cell phone contact. It poses a conundrum. It cost the user to receive calls on a cell and the FDCPA prohibits causing the debtor to incur costs to receive the contact.

Hopefully one of the big boys in the field will fight it out and get the answer.

DC

 

[TigerD]

...as consumers get more educated ...

I dare say education and you are not on intimate terms.

DC

 

[debtwhodebt]

Hey DC,

You would be suprised at what people can do, hey maybe someday someone will show you that anything can be done! You are underestimating people, do you honestly think that you are the smartest person in the world? I mean come on you CAN"T be that full of yourself can you? Oh wait, you are a DC LMAO! Who knows if someone like you can collect debt then maybe one day I MAY be calling you because you are sick and can't pay your bills, WE all get what comes to us in TIME! OH YEAH what about posting your company? I mean you are such a smart person you KNOW everything post it man!

 

[hughjahs]

I dare say education and you are not on intimate terms.

DC

DC said it and your childish rant proves it.

 

[draygnmage]

Ok, I guess I might as well weigh in on this too. I'm a retail collector. I've collected pre-chargeoff, post-chargeoff prelegal, and post-judgment debt.

With that said, its our firm's policy to honor a verbal do not call if they claim the number is cell phone and we verify it via whitepages.com (which is kind enough to show even unlisted numbers as either landline or cellular owned). We do this strictly to avoid being brought to court for something stupid such as "minutes cost me money... FDCPA... yadda yadda yadda." But when you tell me that I can't call you on your cell, I make sure I let you know that if I don't have a valid number to reach you, I'll be moving your file to the front of the list for suit.

As far as people who claim they're going to file bankruptcy. OK. Have your attorney call me and/or fax over a letter of representation. Here's my fax number. Until I receive it calls will continue. With a little luck, I can get my judgment and slap a lien on their property before the debtor can pay the retainer in full and start the bankruptcy. If I'm *really* having a good day, I can drain the debtor's bank account and garnish their wages so they can't afford to finish paying the retainer.

I agree with the nuke analogy as well. If you're that unbalanced that you're gonna file out of spite, then you deserve all the trouble that bankruptcy comes with. And if you really need to file bankruptcy, then at least you're not in my queue any more and I'm not wasting 5 minutes a day on your file.

 

[annajosie]

this is in response to draygmnmage's comments

In the first place, you can file bankruptcy even after you have a judgement on you and if that bankruptcy is not dismissed, then you cannot collect on a judgement if you were included in the list of creditors the debtor is claiming bankruptcy on.

Also, you can try to drain the debtor's bank account, but the debtor could very well take the money out of the bank account before you can drain it.

If you try to garnish wages, it depends on whether or not the debtor is head of household as to whether or not you can garnish wages.

Also, I do not consider a person unbalanced because they may contemplate filing bankruptcy. I consider sleezy collectors unbalanced and greedy.

 

[TigerD]

Anna - BK doesn't dismiss liens against property. You may want to study up on that.

Head of household -- so what? You don't specify the state you are referring to and your statement is NOT accurate in all fifty states - actually it isn't accurate in any state that allows garnishment that I know of. Try again.

DC