I got to work this morning and discovered 6 automated voice messages from a CA. These calls started around 3 am and ended around 4:30 am. I'm under the impression this would be a clear violation of the FDCPA for each call. My work converts our voice messages to an e-mail attachment so the time of these calls is documented. Anyone think I should try to call these guys on this? Do automated messages count under the FDCPA?
My understanding of (5) says that causing a telephone to ring is enough; does not have to have a person on the other end answer the phone. Yep, the CA committed violations. But that's just my opinion, and I am not a lawyer. -- lakpr
that's what I believe as well. Does anyone have any opinion on whether simply committing a violation is enough to justify suing, or is it necessary to show that their actions were damaging?
Basically, I know they violated the FDCPA by calling me in the middle of the night, however they called my work number so it didn't wake me up or anything. I suppose I should talk to an attorney about whether it would be worth it to sue. Their actions didn't harm me at all, however they clearly violated the law which states that they should not be calling between 9pm to 8am.
Have you sent them a validation request? Sounds like you have them on one violation, you should get them on a few more...
Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA? A collector can call at work between 9pm and 8am because at work, they can't wake you up. If there is a violation here, it's the six messages in a single night.
Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA? I understand what you are saying, but I haven't seen that spelled out in the FDCPA. It just states that from 8am to 9pm is the reasonable time to call. They are only calling me at work because that is the only number they know. It probably wouldn't be difficult for me to have them start calling me at home and actually piss me off enough that I'll run to the courthouse, however I'm not really interested in talking to them. They did the same thing last week too so this seems to be a weekly thing.
Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA? The law sets specific times a CA can call, it does NOT distinguish between home or work. It is a violation, but on it's own probably not enough for a lawsuit. Most of the FDCPA is legislative intent, and if they meant to exclude a certain place to call the consumer, they would have included it in the law. WALLST
Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA I work from home often, for example, when my infant child is ill and needs more attention in the daytime. During those few days from time to time that I work at home, my office phone is forwarded to my home number. -- OR -- My pager goes off whenever I get a voicemail at work. Slam dunk.
Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA Mycroft...where do you get your info??? YOU ARE WRONG ONCE AGAIN
Re: Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA What a bunch of critics! The time restriction is only In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary. If I know the debtor can take calls at work, that's knowledge of circumstances to the contrary. That is, if he's there, he's awake and can take my call. If he's not there, then leaving a recorded message in his personal mailbox is no different than leaving a message at home. He gets that message when it's convenient. The violation here is six calls in an hour and a half. That's harassment. Lakpr got it right on that one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. Let's take another look at that. The way I see it you twisted it to read the way you want it to read. The way I read it is that a debt collector shall assume first and foremost that the proper time to make calls to debtors shall be after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location; And for that reason I say the following from you is pure baloney and if a bill collector ever calls one of my students at that time and under those conditions I hope he eats a huge hole in their hind pocket in court. And I think you need a reality check. It is never appropriate to call anyone at their place of business or their place of work. It is disruptive and it is appropriating the resources of the business or the employer and converting them to your purposes. Business phones are there for the sole purpose of promoting the business interests of the owner(s) and bill collectors calling up their employees at any time is nothing more nor less than theft by conversion. Pure plain and simple. You like making these moralistic judgments on others, so take this one yourself. Morally speaking, when you call a debtor at his place of employment you are endangering his job and you are stealing the resources of his employer and it makes no difference whether it is day or night. Morally speaking then you are nothing but a thief even though you had no intention or understanding of being a thief. Practically speaking, too bad such thieves can't be prosecuted, put on probation and made to do community service at the very least. Maybe even spend their nights and weekends in jail to assure the public that they won't be committing their criminal acts in the future. Now then, I hope you realize that I don't mean that personally. Just mean it as a reality check. If I remember correctly you weren't the person did that anyway so you couldn't be guilty of the act. But you did agree with it.
Re: CA calling at 3 am. Actually there's a simpler solution to the 3 a.m. telephone call, irrespective of ones sleeping schedule. It's called the Cease & Desist provision of the FDCPA, lol. Here are the applicable letters: 1) Cease & Desist 2) Cease & Desist 02 3) Cease & Desist 03 4) Cease & Desist 30 Days Later Doc
Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. FDCPA Hey Bauer, Please do us all a favor and stop removing the name of the poster when you quote them. Pretty Please?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. Yes, if you take out In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary then it says exactly what you want it to say. LOL! With enough editing, it could say anything! Then I hope you have some case law to support your interpretation. Else your student might be disapointed in his/her choice of teacher. When I was a bill collector, I never called a person at work when I could reach them at home. If they complained about my calling them at work I suggested some solutions: 1) Be available when I call at home. 2) Call me so I don't have to call you. 3) Let's work something out so that who calls who and when isn't an issue anymore. And yes, I get what you're trying to do here, put the moral argument back on me. It's a noble effort. My response is that I respect your opinion on this matter, even if I don't share it.
Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. F The name of the poster only shows up when one uses the quote function which I never do except this time. I simply do a copy & paste into the new message. That way I get the message parts I want and not the part the quote function thinks is all I need. I guess I could do the copy & paste function first and then hit quote and clean up whatever mess before I pasted the message in. Lots of extra fooling around that way. Didn't realized not having the name of the poster in there would be disconcerting to some. Just didn't stop to think about it. I'll try to remember to type in who I'm speaking to after this. I can see the advantage to it. Thanks for letting me know how you feel.
Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 am. F I can only see two reasons why they would call the workplace at such hours: -they expect someone to pick up -they intend to harrass (blatantly obvious if they know that you are not working at these hours) Either constitutes a violation of FDCPA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CA calling at 3 Mycroft: That is a real laugh. Doc just posted the answer in an earlier post to you. Cease & Desist. But I don't need any 4 or 5 letters to get my points across. In a manner of speaking, I don't even need one. Kind of like the old Brylcreme ads which always said "A little dab will do ya!" And is there case law to back me up? You betcha. FDCPA for one and C&D is a legal doctrine that came to us from British Law. Probably was in existance over there since they wrote the Magna Carta at Runnymeade June 15, 1215. Cease & Desist is one of the most respected parts of FDCPA because the bill collectors fear it so much. WOW! Not a chance! I'm just trying to get you to understand that morality is properly used to teach little kids why they need to conduct themselves in ways that are more acceptable to adults. Morality has always been used as a control mechanism for the other fellow. But you say you aren't a bill collector any more so what reason do you have to attempt to control others here in this or any other message board? None as far as I can see except as you have more than abundantly pointed out, it makes you feel good. This message board isn't about helping Mycroft or Shot Caller feel good. Its about helping people fix problems. Which is obviously falling on deaf ears, rolling off you like water off a duck's back. Then if you don't share the opinions of what is obviously a majority of posters here on this board you might be better received over on MSN or some other board. Judging from most of the posts addressing you and your actions I'd say you aren't all that likely to enhance that warm fuzzy feeling you so obviously crave.
