Harassing Collection Calls
Complaint
Sharon Marsh
Country: United States
I am not sure that this is the name of the company because it is very difficult to understand the name of the company. This company has called me 2 times and left 15 minutes of messages on my answering machine. He repeats his name (which I cannot understand) and his phone number over and over again for 15 minutes.........I called them back the first time approximately a month ago and told him do not call again, and today I received the same 15 minute message. He is not calling for me, but and I am not going to put up with the harassment. The phone number that he give to call back is 1-800 -335-0872. I DO NOT WANT ANYMORE COLLECTION CALLS. I HAVE GOOD CREDIT AND I DO NOT CARE WHO HE IS CALLING FOR HE HAS NO RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO CALL AND HARASS ME! Please let me know what else I can do to get him to stop!
Comments
Given the continuing pattern of failure to remove wrong numbers, even after repeated requests, along with autodialers programmed to make harassing levels of calls, both showing a similar lack of management supervision, reports of "phone play" are not surprising.
Who are your coworkers? A bunch of high school kids?
Now, a few weeks later, you "found religion" and consumer complaints matter?
Why didn't they matter a year ago?
That implies people are majorly pissed at YOUR COWORKERS, and is consistent with violations by particular identifiable employees, such as abuse, harassment, deception, or similar violations.
This is consistent with the pattern of behavior reported in other complaints.
They weren't searching for someone to sue, until you came along and decided it was your right to disturb the peace of their homes.
No one cares about your excuses or justifications, least of all the people you call in error. And you will always be making some fraction of your calls to the wrong people, since phone numbers change.
As a "debt collector", you have fewer rights, not more, because you have specific legal obligations, enforceable in lawsuits that define statutory damages and can award attorney fees.
So don't be stupid and push your luck, like harassment is some "right" you have cause you're a "debt collector".
All of your arguments are aimed at getting a consumer who suspects that a debt is invalid to pay it anyway. This is an example of how debt collectors engage in "little cons" when people are calling to dispute suspect debts, as this consumer clearly was. Instead of directing the consumer toward how to send a dispute and validation request which might resolve the discrepancy, you imply they have no right to dispute, and offer "suggestions", deceptively misdirecting them away from their legal dispute rights.
Nothing you say is false, per se, just deceptive and misleading, lying by ommission. In this case, the alleged debt may or may not even be owed by this person, in other cases where consumers know it isn't, they still often get these misleading replies that imply they have no right to dispute unowed "debt".
The law judges you by the "least sophisticated consumer" standard for a reason, as tou've had a lot of time to practice and polish your replies to every situation.
"IF YOUR SOCIAL IS ATTACHED TO AN ACCOUNT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN FRAUDED"?
And you poke fun at HIS English?
Another "little con". NEVER advise anything that might prove the debt isn't owed. Deception by ommission, but oh so deniable.
Several years ago NCO had high levels of complaints on this and other sites. After they got sued for reaging and paid a large fine, their complaint rates magically dropped to near zero. They still show occasional complaints, but when consumers contact their corporate counsel, the problem is fixed.
Allied Interstate similarly had high rates of complaints showing a pattern very similar to yours. After they settled with FTC and paid a $1.7 Million fine, their complaints also dropped.
You just don't have sufficient incentive yet, and you apparently don't want to learn from the mistakes of others. You should have learned about manners and sharing toys in kindergarden.
BECAUSE THEY ARE DEBTORS AND DONT PAY THEIR BILLS. THIS IS WHY OUR COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE. DONT JUSTIFY PEOPLE NEGLECTING THEIR DEBT.
YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO ATTACK COLLECTION AGENCIES.
JUST STOP IT.
ALSO. IN ALL MY TIME IN COLLECTIONS NEVER ONCE HAVE I EVER TRIED TO COLLECT A DEBT FOR SOMEONE WHO IT DIDNT BELONG TO . THATS WHY OUR CLIENTS HAVE US VERIFY. YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING ME.
DEBT IS LISTED BY ADDRESS, SSN DOB AND NAME, IF THEY DONT MATCH , NUMBER IS REMOVED AND ON TO THE NEXT.
ITS SIMPLE, BUT IM NOT GOING TO BULLY JOHN SMITH INTO PAYING SUE JONES' DEBT. MAKES NO SENSE.
RE: Violation would be actionable by the employee, or even by ANY employee you call after that.
NO KIDDING , THATS WHY ITS DOCUMENTED AND REMOVED. ?? WAHTS THE PROBLEM HERE.
Consumer credit reports will show who pulled credit reports, whether the original creditor, or a debt collector, in the inquiries section.
Consumer credit reports will also show who posted negative information on the report, whether it is the original creditor or a debt collector. The company that posted the information is responsible for ensuring that it is accurate, and they erroneously "verify" it as accurate when it is not, in response to a dispute through the credit reporting agency, then they are liable for the damages caused by their error.
FCRA requires that credit reporting agencies and data furnishers employ procedures to maintain "highest accuracy". What a joke, as more than half of all consumer credit reports show substantial errors. The whole system is designed to allow the players to do whatever they want while denying responsibility.
The credit bureaus do not decide how or what information is reported, they just show whatever the data furnisher pays them to show. Nor do they decide how that information is used, that is decided by the designers of the FICO scoring software. Debt collectors post negative information intentionally, to pressure people into paying alleged debts. If they post it in error, they can and should be held liable.
Numerous complaints are reporting that "picking up the phone" isn't working. Your recent TCPA class action lawsuit is additional confirmation that you have this problem.
When a polite request is not met with simple courtesy, then consumers should be prepared to respond in a manner designed to bring the matter to a close. Send demands in writing, mailed certified, and log all violations, since the next practical step is a lawsuit.
No one in this day should provide any identification over the phone to unknown callers. You know that, and you probably wouldn't do it yourself. Instead, you expect the whole world to do your skip-tracing for you, harassing them until they "prove" they aren't the debtor.
When you are repeatedly calling someone asking them for their identification, bullying them is exactly what you are doing. For legitimate security reasons, they aren't going to provide it, so you use that as an excuse to keep harassing them, claiming you supposedly haven't yet contacted them.
If you HAD contacted them, you would have been required to send them a "g" letter within 5 days, also notifying them of their dispute rights, and your address for sending a validation letter. Either you think you have the right person, in which case you owe them a "g" letter, or you don't, in which case you should cease calling them when they tell you to stop.
Looks more like you want phone contact BEFORE you notify them of their dispute rights. Only reason for that is to con them before they know their rights.
It never happened unless the consumer can prove it.
Failing to do so, or using a false alias, is using deception to collect a debt.
The deliberate use of many numbers and routing though various area codes to appear to be local calls creates the appearance that you are someone else, and defeats consumer attempts at blocking harassing calls through call blocking services. Both practices are consistent with intending to harass.
You can get in a lot of trouble in 2 party notification states like California if you fail to notify, even if you are calling your own customers. See Kearney v. Saloman Smith Barney.