Over two years ago I cancelled my phone service with Qwest Communications. Long and ugly story but I strongly believe I have meritorious defenses to any action they may file. Qwest sent the bills (there are two different accounts, two different lines) to two different CA's last year. I advised those CA's that these were very disputed matters and if they want to get into the middle of it, they are welcome to do so but they mat not be able to get OUT so easily. Wisely, they both dropped it. This week I got letters from two new CA's for these same bills - one wants to settle for 50% and the other for 80%. Not a snowball's chance in hell I'm paying them a dime either. So... I just sent off my letters to them CMRRR advising them of the same things that I told the first CA's: 1. This matter is disputed. If they report it to ANY CRA without the dispute notation, I will immediately and without further notice sue. 2. I demand complete Validation. Any collection attempt made before it is provided will bring an immediate FDCPA suit. 3. This letter is a limited Cease-communications order pursuant to FDCPA. If they wish to sue, I will be glad to accept service of the summons (BOY, do I have a serious counterclaim to interpose as well as the constructive Breach of Contract and Business Interruption defenses.) And I will send them on a paper chase where they will not only find Adam's Deed to the Garden of Eden, they may find the blueprints for Creation. They really don't understand that they are dealing with a very litigous nutcase here.
Is limited meaning "contact me by mail or F OFF!"? please expand on the "pursuant to FDCPA" thanks bugman
Go get em Flying. I'd leave out the blue underlined above tho. Why clue them in on something that may turn out to be a nice little violation. .
this is such an awesome quote: OK, on a serious note.. also please explain why a "limited" C&D in this instance and not a FuLL C&D?
Full C&D provides an immediate escalation to suit in a lot of cases, since that would be the only way that they can contact the alleged debtor in the future. By only limiting communications to writen "all phone communications, and third party communications are inconvinient." they can still contact via writing, but no phone calls.
FDCPA gives me the right to tell them not to contact me any more. I will allow written communications only.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! Please explain. I don't see that option in 805(c) (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.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! Simple - If I hav ethe right to order the termination of all communicatiuon, I also have the right to order the termination of less than all communication by limiting the medium it comes in.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! -I know this is a "hot" issues, but I would advice against "reading into" the statute. -The purpose of the section is to prevent the collector from contacting the consumer PERIOD. -By creating a "limited" ceace communicaiton, not only does it defeat the purpose of the law, it can be used as a defense by the collector in any suit brought for "not ceasing communication" -Here is why. The statute prevents a collector from contacting a consumer after they receive a cease communication request, or they face strict liabillity just for doing it. So they can use the defense that the consumer has "baited" the collector into violating the law by sending vailed cease communication letter, in essence, saying "dont contact me or Ill sue.....but here you can write me" -I would not want to argue this in front of a judge "You cant have your cake and eat it too" -I good example of this is the courts have hear arguement whether it is a violation to even send a "notice of validation rights" to a consumer after they consumer has sent a cease communication letter. So if a collection agency can be in violation for just sending a "required" notice, it is a hard sell for a "limited cease communication letter" -Here is another thought. What happens if the collection agency send the consumer a "limited" cease collection letter "requesting" the consumer to ONLY write them on pink stationary with purple ink. Could the collection agency sue the consumer for not complying? -LOL made myself laugh
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! Thank you Hiding90. I suspected that he was simply assuming something not in the law.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! Hiding. This has been explained to you... The ability to limit telephone communications is in If the consumer advises the CA that *ALL* telephonic communications are inconvenient, they may not use telephonic communications, end of story. The 8 AM - 9 PM contact assumpution of convenience is ONLY valid until the consumer provides them knowledge to the contrary.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! That just talks about "time" and "place" but I can't see where it says anything about "manner" or "method" so he wants to beat on your door after 8 A.M. and before 9 P.M. aint nothing you can do about it you didn't have a no trespassing sign.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! K K Telephonic communications are virtually the ONLY communications which occur at a specific time. THIS is why it is ILLEGAL for a CA to call you BEFORE 8 AM; and AFTER 9 PM. HOWEVER... Those times are just the MINIMUM common denominator UNTIL the consumer advises the CA OTHERWISE that other times are incoveinient to them. Yes, it would also apply to CA's knocking on your door, but that is by far a MINORITY of communications. Telephone & mail are WAY more utilized communications. And of those two only TELEPHONE is occurring as a set *TIME*.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! When your phone rings, do you have to go to a SPECIFIC PLACE to answer it? When you pick up your mail, do you have to go to a SPECIFIC PLACE to get it? When you answer the door, do you have to go to a SPECIFIC PLACE to answer it? Your phone, mailbox, and door are specific places. You have the right to tell them when it is convenient for them to contact you via any specific time AND place. If you say that it is inconvenient for you to have to get out of your chair, walk to the telephone, and pick it up for XYZ Collection Co, then XYZ Collection Co can not call you after you advise them that their calls are inconvenient.
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! Since no one seems to listen to REASON & COMMON SENSE in this matter. Here it is in black & white from the Federal Trade Commission. #2 - A debt collector may not call the consumer at any time, or on any particular day, if he has credible information (from the consumer or elsewhere) that it is inconvenient. IF you tell the debt collector that phone calls are inconvenient at any time, and at any place, then they can not call at any time, or at any place. END OF STORY! This is EXACTLY what a LIMITED C&D IS... It is telling the debt collector that phone calls are inconvenient. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm#805
Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! " Hiding. This has been explained to you... The ability to limit telephone communications is in " -I guess I am hard headed ......cause I STILL dont get the logic -I do have an idea though. Since case law etc has kinda been "generally accepted", jam, howz about posting some case law on this subject. IF it excists, IT WOULD BE A HUGE ASSET for the consumer.
Re: Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after me! Hiding, This assumes that there is an even handed application of the FDCPA across the spectrum of both consumer and collector. FDCPA is NOT for the protection of the CA but rather, the consumer. In fact the "least sophisticated consumer". (That means if you're an idiot, for those of you in West Palm Beach, Broward or Dade Counties). Therefore, if the FDCPA places a certain restriction on a CA, but the consumer chooses to apply a less restrictive standard to the situation, the court has already been instructed to construe the situation in favor of the consumer. Very simply, here's how it works; "Your Honor, most everyone knows these people lie on the phone. Even the FDCPA says there's an abundance of evidence of widespread abuse. Therefore, I restricted all communications to written form ONLY so as to protect my rights as a consumer." Protecting your rights by demanding all communications be in writing is a customary method for the preservation of your rights. Any court will allow us, in light of the certain degree of restriction provided by FDCPA to willingly accept a LESSOR degree of restriction, in order to protect yourself legally, because it allows us to try to resolve the situation while, at the same time, suppressing the harassment. Now if any one thinks I can't convince a Judge to construe in my favor, I'll meet ya in court any day. Remember your just a dumba$$ consumer who can't find his butt with both hands. Folks: 809 also says your dispute MUST be in writing. But this too is not correct. A strict reading of the statute is a good thing, but lets not get carried away. .
Re: Re: YAY!!!!! TWO CA's are after It is common practice for many businesses to restrict certain kinds of communication to certain addresses or individuals. For example: 1) Many states allow creditors to require that payments with restrictive endorsements only be sent to certain addresses. If the standard address is used, which often goes to a subcontractor, the restriction is not enforcable, even if the check is cashed. 2) Frequently, in legal proceedings, one side will direct the other that all communication go thru their attorney. 3) Only certain parties within a company have been deligated the authority to bind the company to certain types of contracts, such as purchasing supplies. Those persons know and enforce the company's policies on approving and documenting contracts. 4) Notification of a corporation, as when filing suit, is generally done in writing thru their agent of service. 5) The consumer's rights under the FCBA are only preserved if disputes are sent in writing to an address the Requesting that a CA or OC, in communicating to resolve a dispute, do so in writing at a specified address, is just as legitimate as these examples. I see no reason to consider phone calls as anything but harrassment, if communication has been requested in writing to an address you have designated, provided you reply. Providing a clear channel for all communication, with all communication in writing, helps to promote an orderly resolution of a dispute.
