If a CA calls a consumer and leaves the standard legal message on VM that this message is for consumer x and to go somewhere private to listen to this message, etc, etc....and closes with please contact us about an important business matter, and the consumer never calls back, is that considered the Initial Comunication as defined in 15 USC 1692g (a)?
Thanks jam! Family member has received 3 phone calls over last 14 days from a CA, each call/contact had left a VM from CA stated "this is attempt to collect a debt", and still no written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
Was the family member the consumer, or was it a third-party communication? My approach is to send a fax on the 10 business day saying. "Hey on xx/xx/xxxx, your company called me, you were required to provide notice within 5 days, please send a check for $1,000.00 immediately, have a nice life."
Family member is the consumer. Third-party would have only made writing the love letter to the CA more fun. I believe they're more or less at that point by now (forget exact date of org VM left). And at least another call or two has come along since we last spoke. Sometimes they make it way to easy. "have a nice life"... LOL.
Yes, I do come off with rather a large amount of bravado, ironically, its also why when lawyers pull a pacer report for my name, they call with a stutter in their throat...
Where the CA is mistaken, there is never a requirement that the consumer ever uses the phone, so saying you have to call us back is on its face false and misleading. A consumer can always send a "calls are inconvenient" letter preventing any future calls.
I wonder if that loosely falls under 15 USC 1692e .....A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Good idea. Maybe I'll just have her include 1692c(1) in the DV/you've already violated care to go for another, LTR.
