I think I understand both the meaning, and tactical strategy, of "providing knowledge" to the CA of "inconvenient to call at any time, or place". But I believe Apex is upheld with the request to "cease & desist communication, except in writing", as the FDCPA uses the language of "Ceasing communication": "(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except -- (1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated; (2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or (3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy. If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt. (d) For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator." I believe Apex was relating this (above) language, relative to the FDCPA requirements. Again, I believe we understand what you are warning against, the "or else" (legal action) message implied with a true "Cease & Desist" letter. However, I beleive Apex was tactically stepping around that with the exclusion of "except in writing", and this negates the legal "or else" tone. I think we ackowledge that your suggestion of wording it "inconvenient" also sets up "drawing the foul" so to speak. Perhaps we are hung up on just the word "Desist" in this discussion. I feel Apex was trying to be clear to the poster as to the message to deliver, if the poster truly does not want the CA to call, with a more definitive reference to the FDCPA. Not to be overlooked, Apex made a very good statement that we should focus on, trying to unite our advise to help the posters.
Indeed we should; and informed guidance, not directive, for the poster is what is intended. As for heading for the gutter, sorry, I'm not the one that's doing the dive. The term cease and desist almost automatically puts you in an adversarial position vis the recipient, whereas a gentler inconvenient to call is more informative than aggressive. It is often more effective to save the adversarial stuff for when it can have better effect. The author is well advised to understand his own intent before he creates perceptions that may complicate matters further down the road and to chose his words accordingly. .
