First off I feel really silly for even needing to ask this question.....I work in collections & have for 9yrs; I thought I was an expert. However, the company i work for currently is VERY VERY "safe" meaning our company policies are MUCH MORE stringent than just about any state or fdcpa law ..... Since 11/1/09 the only thing we are allowed to say in a voicemail message is "Our name, company name, that we are a debt collector calling about a personal biz matter, please call me back & #" because of the recent ruling involving NCO, not based on an ammendment to the fdcpa. So i get a voicemail today @ my job & on my cell (I believe it is about a payday loan from an internet company) from "Smith Haynes & Watson". Shannon says I have a very urgent matter to discuss with you, we can resolve this voluntarily but only if I talk to you immediantly please call me @ 800-351-8820". No mention of anything else. No I'm a debt collector; this communication is from a debt collector; nothing. Is this an FDCPA violation?
I dunno. How close does this match what happened in the NCO case? I'd guess that it's not, but it could be in the "gray area" of things not specifically described in the FDCPA. I don't recall the details of the NCO case.
I wouldn't feel too silly if I were you. That phone number belongs to: Geneva Roth Ventures P.O. Box 148 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201 800-351-8820 ext. 247 The ext. is for Trent Bradley Director of Fraud and Compliance 913-825-1200 (direct office number) This is a collection agency for Xpresscash. A lot of complaints are documented about them: So you probably got the loan from Xpresscash and failed to pay them for whatever reason. If that is true then I'd feel silly for even dealing with a payday loan company in the first place. Dealing with an internet payday loan company would cause me to feel even sillier. The internet paydays usually demand their money back in two weeks instead of the normal 30 days you get when dealing with the local brick and mortar companies. Geneva Roth Ventures has gobs of complaints against them for illegally grabbing cash out of people's bank accounts. Seems that one of their shady practices is grabbing only the interest amounts over a long period of time and not applying the money to the original debt so after paying many times the original amount the debtor still owes the original amount. Since the outcome of such cases as you speak of (NCO) seems to vary from circuit to circuit I'd suggest that you check some cases from your specific circuit to see how the judges in your circuit have ruled in such cases. What a judge in the 1st circuit (for example) has ruled is not binding upon courts in any other circuits. So if you live in the 1st circuit (for example) and you cite a case ruling from the 9th circuit (for example) the 9th circuit ruling is not a compelling verdict and while the judge in your circuit might go along with the ruling you cite from another circuit but is not compelled to do so. On the other hand, if the ruling came from the same or a higher court such as the SCOTUS then that would be compelling law. Smart lawyers never quote anything but statute law or compelling case cites from higher courts in their immediate jurisdictions. Dumb lawyers quote cases from anywhere and pro se litigants often get even worse by quoting such cases as the credit river case or H.J.R. 192 or Modern Money Mechanics. So whether or not you have a viable and thus winnable cause of action against them might very well depend on how the courts in your circuit have ruled in previous cases of a similar nature. So you have been a debt collector for 9 years and think you are pretty expert at the law? Having people such as yourself come here to post pleases me greatly. Welcome aboard. I sincerely hope that while we may or may not be able to answer this particular question to your satisfaction you will stick around and become a permanent poster here. I'm absolutely certain that we can learn a great deal from your contributions and additionally hope that we may be able to provide you with some useful information from time to time in return.
Look to your state statutes. Many states have reined in pay-day lenders and their collection activities. Some states have banned PDL operations.
