I've recently had the unfortunate experience of dealing with an especially sneaky CA who "stealths" (i.e. spoofs) their phone number over the caller ID service. I take great offense to this because it: 1) Prevents you from identifying who's calling, especially if the CA doesn't leave messages on your answering machine. 2) Essentially forces you to speak to a collections agent in order to gain any sort of meaningful information about who's calling you. and... 3) Is especially frustrating when the CA doesn't send the mandatory written notice in accordance with 15 USC §1692g(a). If anything, I imagine this dubious practice would fall under 15 USC §1692e(10): Additionally, I believe these shenanigans are also a violation of the "Truth in Caller ID Act," which carries rather stiff penalties for each violation of it. I think this warrants a call to a lawyer and the PA Attorney General's office...
I've been getting the same thing. A well-known CA is calling using at least two dozen different numbers. I stopped short of complaining simply because calling any of the numbers routes to their call center. In other words, the numbers themselves are legit. It's not like they're using fake numbers; they're actually showing numbers that they themselves own. However, I'm currently researching caselaw in my state to find out of this constitutes harassment. I'm getting upwards of 14 calls a day from these numbers, and no voicemails. Since harassment is generally defined as repeated communication without any meaningful purpose, and since they aren't leaving any messages, and since the call volume is so excessive, it sure sounds like it to me. Not sure if it's the same CA as you, but definitely keep us posted.
In the interest of fairness, it's entirely possible that the number the CA used to contact me was "legit" in that it probably connects you to their main offices, but I never confirmed this. My reason for not calling the number back was that it wasn't a toll-free number which was merely just an extension of multiple branches within the same company; it was an unfamiliar number from "Unknown Name" with a Philadelphia area code and would've been considered long-distance had I called it. Based on such information, is it entirely unreasonable to conclude that the facts as stated are insufficient to establish the identity of our mystery CA? Suffice to say, I wasn't about to incur great expense to discover the identity of this mysterious CA. I also know for a fact this CA doesn't have any branch offices in PA because when I finally did speak to the agent, the direct call back number they gave me was for their main offices in another state. I don't believe it takes a great leap of logic to classify this as "false representation" or "deceptive means" of attempting to collect a debt from me as I was denied an initial written notification and essentially forced to pick up the phone against my will and speak to a potentially hostile collections agent in order to ascertain who was seeking me (and no, they did not disclose the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, or my rights under the FDCPA during the call). You might be interested in knowing that the ACA International thinks this issue is serious enough to warrant giving second thought to displaying anything other than a CA's true identity and phone number on a person's CID. It's not a "smoking gun," but it shows that they're definitely concerned about potential violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act. As for my progress report, the PA Attorney General's office wants me to file a formal complaint and submit any supporting evidence I have. I haven't contacted a private attorney yet as it seems lawyers in this area don't seem keen to working on a contingency basis. As it stands I'm struggling to support a family of three, ergo I don't have money to spend on retainer fees. Maybe I should contact Legal Aid services? Hmmm... If I may ask, has the CA in your case mailed you an initial written communication? Just curious.
That's one for the courts to decide. It comes down to "I don't feel like calling them back because ____" versus "the CA displayed a number registered to them". Do they have any further obligation? Is it deceptive to show your number? Bear in mind that most call centers have hundreds, if not thousands, of internal numbers. While it's permissible to display an "inaccurate" number (such as a toll-free customer number, or the number for the main switchboard at the call center), it's also perfectly acceptable to display the external direct number of the call originator. This isn't always possible due to the internal structure of the call center, but it is permissible. So if the CA is displaying a number that routes the customer back to the CA's facility, or to a direct employee of the CA, my gut feeling is that this is not in itself a violation. This touches on the FDCPA's provision of 806(6) - requirement of meaningful disclosure of identity. You can answer the phone call, call the number back, or Google the number to determine the source of the call. I understand your reasons for not wanting to do so, but their obligation ends where your choices begin. However: Notice of your rights is required on initial contact, so if they failed to provide that, that is indeed a violation. Yes. I've actually been fighting this particular CA for years. The SOL has lapsed on litigation in both the native locality and the locality specified under the choice-of-law clause. I haven't sent them a C&D because the more they communicate with me, the more likely they are to slip up and commit a violation.
Before I answer, I first want to apologize if I sound combative. After re-reading my post, I realize I may have been somewhat "over-enthusiastic" in my elaborations, but I wasn't directing any animosity towards you. I acknowledge you're trying to show "both sides of the case," so to speak. I am also admittedly angered by this particular CA behaving in a manner which I consider surreptitious. Again, there does exist the possibility that the number displayed was, in fact, a direct means of contacting the CA in question. In this respect, I condede that the "meaningful disclosure" aspect is arguable. However, there are also other factors which should be taken into consideration: 1) The CA did not mail a written notice pursuant to 15 USC §1692g(a). With a written notice in hand, it may have been possible to deduce by context that the phone call was, in fact, from a debt collector. 2) Answering the phone call was not required or necessary by virtue of the fact that I own an answering machine. Some people have an aversion to picking up the phone when they receive a call from an unknown number, and I happen to be one of them. This practice hasn't stopped CA's from leaving messages on my answering machine in the past, and even when the number was unrecognizable or the CID displayed "Unknown Name," their messages almost always disclosed their identity (e.g. "This is a call from ABC Financial for Mr. John Smith regarding a very important business matter. If you are Mr. John Smith, please return this call at 800-555-1212 and quote reference number 12345."). By contrast, this particular CA has never left any messages on my answering machine. 3) The number displayed on my CID was from a Philadelphia area code. Had I called this number back, I would have incurred long distance charges. 4) Surprisingly, a Google search turned up absolutely nothing on the number in question. It wasn't until I found out exactly who this CA was that Google searches are now possible because I specifically made it a point to "expose" their ruse on 800notes.com Taking the above mentioned circumstances into account, it wasn't possible to identify the caller and obtain enough information to exercize my rights under the FDCPA without incurring long distance calling expenses and/or speaking to a potentially hostile collections agent. Granted, only a judge and jury can decide if a violation (or violations) occured, but given the circumstances I think the activities of this particular CA don't appear to be very "legit" on the surface. I admit this is all highly speculative anyway. I'm merely voicing things the way I see them in order to, as a wise lawyer once said, "construct an argument that will convince someone other than myself." If your strategy is to take them to Federal Court for FDCPA violations and win damages, then you're definitely on the right track. In my case, I simply want to be able to fire off a convincing nastygram to said CA in case they prove to be especially pugnacious after receiving my DV letter and, I s'pose, have a pretty ironclad case against them should the need arise to file suit. In other words, I'm not in it for the money. I want to handle them the same way you'd handle an aggressive dog (i.e. "If you hurt me, I'll hurt you worse.")
