Should Facebook be off-limits for debt collectors on the prowl? One Florida woman thinks so.
Melanie Beacham, of St. Petersburg, Fla., filed a complaint against MarkOne Financial, LLC, alleging that employees of MarkOne harassed her and her family members over Facebook to intimidate her into paying an alleged debt. A representative of MarkOne contacted Melanie’s sister and cousin through Facebook and a screen capture included in the complaint shows a message stating, “Please Have Melanie D Beacham call me” and the message included his phone number.
Although MarkOne declined comment because of pending litigation, the company stated that its policy is to use Facebook to locate the person when their profile is fully public and when he or she has not responded to requests through “conventional means”.
The legal issues surrounding the usage of Facebook in debt collection are somewhat vague because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was written decades ago, long before the advent of social media.
Regardless of what kind of medium debt collectors use to reach consumers, they are prohibited from revealing information to third parties and cannot make false, deceptive, misleading or harassing representations.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, or FDCPA, was enacted to protect consumers from overzealous debt collectors whose methods include harassment, threats and coercion. To these businesses a consumer is nothing more than a number representing dollars and cents, part of the profit margin and nothing more.
These debt collectors view their violations of the FDCPA as a business decision instead of a lawful requirement that may must abide by. Their disregard of this law is clearly expressed in the following insider marketing documents that were sent out to various debt collectors offering litigation services.
Each year the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provides Congress with a report on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). While the report focuses heavily on the number of complaints received from consumers, it also summarizes actions that the FTC has taken to “curtail deceptive, unfair, and abusive debt collection practices.”
As in years past, the FTC received more complaints about the debt collection industry than any other industry. In 2009, the FTC received 119,364 complaints about first- and third-party debt collectors, up from 104,766 in 2008—an increase of nearly 15,000 complaints. With that said, it is important to point out that the FTC does not investigate each complaint to determine if there was an actual violation of the law. The FTC acknowledges that not all of the complaints received are violations of the Act. It is also worth noting that although the total number of complaints increased, so did the number of consumers who fell past due on credit obligations. An increase in the number of past due consumers opens the door for an increase in the number of complaints.
We encourage you to download and review the 2010 FDCPA report in its entirety to become familiar with its contents, and if you haven’t reviewed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lately, you might consider doing so while this article has your attention.
We review the top five FDCPA complaints received by the FTC in 2009 and point you to the corresponding section of the FDCPA.
#5 Communicating with Third Parties Repeatedly to Obtain Location Information.
“This past year, 19.2% of complaints, or 16,926 complaints, claimed that collectors called a third party repeatedly to obtain location information …”
The FDCPA §804(3) says: A debt collector shall not communicate with a third party more than once unless requested to do so by the third party, or unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of the third party was erroneous or incomplete and that the third party now has correct and complete location information.
#4 Threatening Action Which Cannot or Is Not Intended to Be Taken.
“In 2009, 20.9% of FDCPA complaints, or 18,438 complaints, reported that third party collectors falsely threatened a lawsuit or some other action that they could not or did not intend to take…”
The FDCPA §807(5) says: A debt collector shall not threaten to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
#3 Failing to Send the Required Validation Notice.
“Last year, 25.7% of the FDCPA complaints, or 22,708 complaints, reported that collectors did not provide the required notice….”
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §809(a) says: Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice …” (The notice is referred to as the Validation Notice and includes the amount of the debt, name of the creditor, and important information regarding disputes and verification.
#2 Demanding a Larger Payment Than is Permitted by Law.
“This category includes two different FDCPA law violation codes. First, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt. Other complaints in this category state that collectors have sought to collect on debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy. In 2009, 31.1%, or 27,420 FDCPA complaints, described this conduct.”
The FDCPA §807(2) says: A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. This includes the false representation of the character, amount, or legal status; or any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.
#1 Calling Repeatedly and Continuously.
“In 2009, 46.5% of FDCPA complaints the FTC received, or 41,028 complaints, claimed that collectors harassed the complainants by calling repeatedly or continuously.”
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §806(5) says: A debt collector may not cause a telephone to ring or engage any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”
Recently, Credit Law attorney Craig Thor Kimmel appeared with NBC10′s Tracy Davidson on “Survive & Thrive” to discuss how consumers can fight back against debt collection harassment. Here is the clip:
If you are receiving harassing calls from debt collectors, even if you owe the debt, you cannot be harassed, abused, threatened, or have others told about your debt! You have rights under federal law. Watch video of attorney Craig Kimmel speaking about the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, sharing some of the abuses by debt collectors and what they can and can’t do.
NBC10 Interview with Tracey Davidson:
Are you a victim of unfair collection practices? Contact us for free legal representation! We collect all fees from the debt collectors not you! We stop the harassment immediately. You may also be entitled to money damages of as much as $1,000 and other damages. Unless you want the calls/letters to continue, call us!
Three out-of-state lawyers, accused of using unfair tactics to collect debts in Colorado, have been banned from collecting debts for periods ranging from three years to life, the Colorado attorney general’s office said Tuesday.
Under a consent decree issued late Monday, lawyer Mar vin Brandon is permanently banned from collecting debts in Colorado; lawyer Jack H. Boyajian is banned from collecting debts in Colorado for five years, and lawyer Karen Nations is banned from collecting debts for three years in Colorado.
Debt Collection Attorney Craig Kimmel is featured in this story from the Concord Monitor detailing the aggressive tactics that debt collectors employ to collect on debts they purchase for pennies on the dollar. Consumers reported being harassed and threatened. They said collection agents failed to investigate disputed debts and disclosed alleged debt to relatives and employers.
Third-party debt collectors generated 78,000 complaints to the Federal Trade Commission in 2008, twice the number received in 2003, according to the agency’s most recent report. That same year, the agency won more than $1 million in civil damages against collection agencies.
It’s a decades-old practice known in legal circles as “sewer service”. This occurs when a debt collector fails to properly serve a notice of complaint (litigation) upon the defendant (debtor) and then files a false affidavit claiming the notice has been properly served. When the debtor doesn’t show up in court, the collector can then apply for, and almost always wins, a default judgment. This is a violation of the FDCPA and has become a staple practice for “reputable” and “not reputable” debt collectors alike. If you have been the victim of “sewer service”, contact us today for free representation and immediate relief from the debt collector.
