Received a hang-up call on my Google Voice Number about 5 weeks ago. Right after they called, they couldn't pull up my number to any account; and actually had the balls to ask if I knew which of their as best as I can count so far, 5 actual corporate names, 4 of which have the same exact outbound phone number, and facsimile number, and at least as many aliases called me so that they could help figure out who could have called. HELLO, IF THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT A MESSAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE, I WOULD KNOW WHICH OF THE CORPORATE NAMES AND THEIR ALIASES TRIED TO CALL. Send a hey "Who Are You, Whoo Whoo?" letter via facsimile... Called back later, and got into their voice mail, and leave a voice mail for their president, with a CC of the same voice mail to their secretary/ethics contact. Call back today, get a couple real winners. Who remember, they couldn't find my phone number minutes after they called, by the number, how would they find it now, either... So have the position, it's fixed, buzz off, don't call us again. The best part, the manager thinks that just leaving the call idle would kill the call, instead after about a half-hour or so (it's their toll-free number, sucks to be them), it drops the call into their voice mail system, which allowed me to send a voice mail to their president and CC it again to the ethics contact. So send a letter via facsimile to the two of them saying, "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? GOOD!" and point out the little thing that they don't want someone to know, as Dunham v. Portfolio pointed out, misidentified consumers are still consumers and they are required to comply with 15 USC 1692d(6), 15 USC 1692e(11), and 15 USC 1692g. The key to Dunham v. Portfolio, they have to provide the notices, AND if the notice alone proves that the consumer isn't the correct consumer, THEN and ONLY THEN are they able to say we don't have to provide them with specific validation (because then it would be an unlawful disclosure to third-parties). That's the only reason that Dunham's suit failed, he was demanding after they provided the Chaudry letter which confirmed he was NOT the correct consumer, to STILL be provided with further specific documents which would have further confirmed that he was NOT the correct consumer; and THOSE could have contained information which could have opened the correct consumer up to identity theft, and more... So note to the other side, if you don't know how your system responds when you abandon a call for a half-hour, maybe you don't want to abandon a call for a half-hour so that they can't get to the voice mail and leave a message for the president and ethics contacts of their company, when they've already rattled off their names a few dozen times in the call, and mentioned suing you a couple of times. I love calling CAs, but unless you can OWN the call, I don't recommend it.
So basically... A misidentified party, still needs to have the meaningful identity of the caller, and their business; the notice that they are a debt collector, and that any information obtained is a part of an attempt to collect a debt; and the validation notice, including the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The CA unilaterally deleting the information when they receive a communication back from the misidentified consumer DOES NOT revoke the fact that they had to provide the requite notices to the misidentified consumer. At least that's the legality behind the suit that I attached to the letter to them (and a second company who misidentified me). "The plaintiff has rights afforded under the FDCPA, even as a misidentified consumer, otherwise the defendants could harass, abuse, and annoy anyone other than the alleged debtor." i.e. They could theoretically under PRA's logic, enter into their automated dialer system every single 10 digit phone number combination for every single account in their system. If they reach the actual consumer, all well and good, if not, we didn't bother a consumer, no harm, no foul. It's the same errant logic that St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company used to try to get around the FCRA, it's only a consumer report, if we use it for a permissible purpose, if we use it for an non-permissible purpose, it's not. Hmmmmm, the court found that that didn't pass the stink test, either. (St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Johnson)
I know their (and the other company similarly situated) will argue that they are in a conundrum, how can they provide the misidentified consumer with the requisite notices, while not improperly communicating with third parties. So, I decided to craft a "SAFE HARBOR" letter, when a misidentified consumer contacts the CA in regards to a communication via phone, or credit report. The name/address and any specific details of the alleged debtor are not conveyed, and only the specific details required under the FDCPA are disclosed. Since misidentification can occur because of someone with the number previously assigned, or a mismatch from SKIP-TRACING it is impossible to discern whether the 'correct' party was someone with the consumer's name (or similar) or number (or similar).
