TigerD
Senior Member
No. It isn't fair.
If you want to change the law, I'm all for it. Give me debtor's prisons and make collectors criminally liable for their actions. Where do I sign?
DC
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Got served by mistaken Identity. What to do
- Thread starter hobbesk
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
If you want to change the law, I'm all for it. Give me debtor's prisons and make collectors criminally liable for their actions. Where do I sign?
DC
TinkerBelleLuvr
Senior Member
My neighbours have had a similar situation. what we did was "google" the phone number and was able to get the name and address of the callers. Then, they sent letters to the callers advising them of their mistake and threatening to take them to court for harrassment if they continued to call. It certainly slowed them down. They were NOT protected by the debtor rules because they were NOT a party to the debt. But, they have a right not to be "harrassed" by these folks. That was the tactic used.
FlyingRon
Senior Member
Believe me, I've called the credit agency and talked to people presuming to be management a number of times who promise (BIGGER LIARS than the creditors are alleged to be). I've had representatives lie to me on the phone (ILLEGAL), call at illegal hours (1AM), etc.... I even filed a harrasment complaint with the police department their officers are in.
It still happens.
DC are by and large opportunistic scum balls, unconcerned with being legal or correct.
I'm actually suprised to read this, I never hard about someone else that had this problem. My one run-in with a debt collector was one trying to collect from me that my Dad owed money to (same first and last name). Somehow, I failed to impress upon him that the 30 year age difference, the different DOB, and completely different SSN would seem to be indicator's that he "had the wrong guy". I even gave them the current address and phone number for my father and they still were calling me.
You may say that "all debtor's lie", but that's no more accurate than saying all collection agencies are full of bullying, self-righteous, criminal thugs. They harrassed me, called my employer, called after midnight, had someone following me around, and even sent someone to my house to try to bully me into letting him in to repossess items that I never even had (unsuccesfully, the only item he got a good look at was a Ruger P90).
You may say that "all debtor's lie", but that's no more accurate than saying all collection agencies are full of bullying, self-righteous, criminal thugs. They harrassed me, called my employer, called after midnight, had someone following me around, and even sent someone to my house to try to bully me into letting him in to repossess items that I never even had (unsuccesfully, the only item he got a good look at was a Ruger P90).
Last edited:
I don't at all agree with Debtor's prisons although I will acknowledge that many of the debtors do lie. What I'm referring to are the people who are mistaken by the collectors as the target debtor and are put in a position to have to prove they are not the one the collectors want, costing them legal fees and time lost at work.
What recourse does the wrong person, who is now out those fees, have against the collector who caused that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/nyregion/29about.html?_r=1
About New York
Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned
Published: November 27, 2009
The phone rang. A woman from a law firm representing a collection agency wanted to know if Mark Hoyte was Mark Hoyte, and he said he was. They were calling to collect $919 on a Sears-Citi card.
Richard Perry/The New York Times
A judge ruled that Mark Hoyte was entitled to be compensated wages lost the day he was summoned to court. He was wrongly sued for credit card debt.
Mr. Hoyte said he never had that credit card.
Then the woman wanted to know if his Social Security number ended in 92, and Mr. Hoyte said no, it ended in 33.
“She says to me, ‘Your date of birth is in 1972,’ ” Mr. Hoyte, 46, recalled in an interview.
Clearly, they had the wrong Mark Hoyte. But that did not stop the lawyers at Pressler & Pressler from suing him. They swore out a complaint and sent a summons to Mr. Hoyte, ordering him to be in court last Monday.
Then things took a rare turn.
Every day of the year, 1,000 cases on average are added to the civil court dockets in New York City over credit card debt — a high-volume, low-accuracy moment of reckoning. The suits are usually brought by collection companies that purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar from card issuers and then work with a cadre of law firms that specialize in collection work.
Conducting a digital dragnet, they troll through commercial databases searching for debtors. Because of the vast sloppiness and fraud involved, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has shut down two of the collection firms and is suing 35 law firms tied to the business.
A person who blows off a civil court summons — even if wrongly identified — faces a default judgment and frozen bank accounts. But to date, there have been few penalties against collectors for dragging the wrong people into court.
Until Mr. Hoyte turned up last week in Brooklyn.
After trying to settle the case in the hallway — the 11th floor of 141 Livingston Street is an open bazaar of haggling — the collections lawyer realized he had the wrong man. He got Mr. Hoyte to sign an agreement that would end the case against him, but not against the Mark Hoyte who actually owed the $919.
In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.
Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.
“Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”
Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.
“So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.
Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”
The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.
“Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”
“My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”
The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.
“Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”
No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.
Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Hoyte recounted being called about the debt, providing his Social Security number and date of birth, and being summoned to court anyhow.
The collections lawyer then began to interrogate Mr. Hoyte.
“You claim you told Pressler & Pressler it wasn’t you,” Mr. Wang said to Mr. Hoyte. “Did you send them proof, as in a copy of your Social Security number with only the last four digits visible?”
“No,” Mr. Hoyte said. “They didn’t ask for it.”
“But you didn’t send any written proof of the claim that it was not you?” Mr. Wang said.
“I told them on the phone it’s not me,” Mr. Hoyte said.
Mr. Wang appeared outraged.
“So without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so?” he demanded. “Is that correct?”
Alice had reached Wonderland: The lawyer who had sued the wrong man was blaming the wrong man for getting sued.
Judge Dear cut off the questioning. He told Mr. Wang and Mr. Hoyte to come back to court in January.
“If, somehow, counsel, you decide that you’re going to compensate him for his time off,” Judge Dear said, “I will reconsider sanctions.”
Hopefully, the Times will post a followup in Jan.
About New York
Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned
Published: November 27, 2009
The phone rang. A woman from a law firm representing a collection agency wanted to know if Mark Hoyte was Mark Hoyte, and he said he was. They were calling to collect $919 on a Sears-Citi card.
Richard Perry/The New York Times
A judge ruled that Mark Hoyte was entitled to be compensated wages lost the day he was summoned to court. He was wrongly sued for credit card debt.
Mr. Hoyte said he never had that credit card.
Then the woman wanted to know if his Social Security number ended in 92, and Mr. Hoyte said no, it ended in 33.
“She says to me, ‘Your date of birth is in 1972,’ ” Mr. Hoyte, 46, recalled in an interview.
Clearly, they had the wrong Mark Hoyte. But that did not stop the lawyers at Pressler & Pressler from suing him. They swore out a complaint and sent a summons to Mr. Hoyte, ordering him to be in court last Monday.
Then things took a rare turn.
Every day of the year, 1,000 cases on average are added to the civil court dockets in New York City over credit card debt — a high-volume, low-accuracy moment of reckoning. The suits are usually brought by collection companies that purchase the debt for pennies on the dollar from card issuers and then work with a cadre of law firms that specialize in collection work.
Conducting a digital dragnet, they troll through commercial databases searching for debtors. Because of the vast sloppiness and fraud involved, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has shut down two of the collection firms and is suing 35 law firms tied to the business.
A person who blows off a civil court summons — even if wrongly identified — faces a default judgment and frozen bank accounts. But to date, there have been few penalties against collectors for dragging the wrong people into court.
Until Mr. Hoyte turned up last week in Brooklyn.
After trying to settle the case in the hallway — the 11th floor of 141 Livingston Street is an open bazaar of haggling — the collections lawyer realized he had the wrong man. He got Mr. Hoyte to sign an agreement that would end the case against him, but not against the Mark Hoyte who actually owed the $919.
In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.
Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.
“Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”
Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.
“So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.
Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”
The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.
“Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”
“My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”
The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.
“Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”
No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.
Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Hoyte recounted being called about the debt, providing his Social Security number and date of birth, and being summoned to court anyhow.
The collections lawyer then began to interrogate Mr. Hoyte.
“You claim you told Pressler & Pressler it wasn’t you,” Mr. Wang said to Mr. Hoyte. “Did you send them proof, as in a copy of your Social Security number with only the last four digits visible?”
“No,” Mr. Hoyte said. “They didn’t ask for it.”
“But you didn’t send any written proof of the claim that it was not you?” Mr. Wang said.
“I told them on the phone it’s not me,” Mr. Hoyte said.
Mr. Wang appeared outraged.
“So without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so?” he demanded. “Is that correct?”
Alice had reached Wonderland: The lawyer who had sued the wrong man was blaming the wrong man for getting sued.
Judge Dear cut off the questioning. He told Mr. Wang and Mr. Hoyte to come back to court in January.
“If, somehow, counsel, you decide that you’re going to compensate him for his time off,” Judge Dear said, “I will reconsider sanctions.”
Hopefully, the Times will post a followup in Jan.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">