I too, do not answer calls with no name, no number or 800 numbers. After over a year of unemployment and only able to get part time work, I had to give up my landline. I get repeated unknown calls on my cell, even though all creditors were sent written notices not to contact my cell number. I'm almost at a point that I cannot afford my cell, but if it give it up I have no way to get contact from a potential employer. When I get a full time job I will gladly pay my debts, but constant calls will not get the debt paid any faster. Not one company called me to give the the credit, so they should not call my cell and cost me more money that will prolong them getting paid. Besides, most of the calls are robo-calls with no message ever being left so I never know who the call is for.
Dan says that the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits creditors from using automated dialing systems to call cell phone numbers without consent from the customer" and that sounds reasonable if that were true. I receive countless ro-bo calls on my cell, to which most never leave a message so there is no way to report it. To add to that, I have sent written notice to all creditors not to call my cell because of the charges, yet someone is calling. I do not answer those unknown calls because I have nothing more to add to any previous calls about the debt. The only call that has ever left a message is about a debt for someone else, too which I called and told them ithey have the wrong number and not to call, but they still call.
Calls at work are too instrusive. Most companies, like mine, do not allow personal calls. Not all people have M-F 9-5 office jobs. If you work in a warehouse, a production line or as a cashier, you cannot take calls and it can cause issues with a supervisor. As someone who has answered a company phone, you can tell a caller that the employee cannot take calls or that they don't work there, but that caller will repeatedly call back. My position on this is simple, if the creditor does not call to confirm employment before credit is issued, they should not call after the debt is in collection. If they confirm employment then they could also inquire about the communication policy. Personally, I am in a position of constant public contact with no available phone with me and it would be hard to immpossible to have a phone conversation without leaving my work area which would cause issues with management for my job.
I have one debt in the court. Here is my issue, I never received any paperwork saying there was a court date. I did receive a letter from my bank a month after the court hearing saying they received a garnishment notice. They could've saved the court costs since I already had told them I was unemployed. Secondly, after I received the bank letter, I then received three (that's right three) garnishment hearing notices from three different companies for the same debt. Since I was unemployed I could not afford to get an attorney. It would've been nice if I could have provided the court (telephonically or by pre-trial documents) with documentation to explain why I was unable to pay the debt, but the paperwork said to only respond if you did not owe the debt. I believe court documents and debt companies should have easier and clearer paperwork for the lay person to understand their rights. And yes, debt collectors should have to provide documentation that the debt is owed and they have the right to collect.
About a month after my husband left the military and before we even moved into a new place, a creditor called his parents and told them he was in the military with my husband and had papers that hadn't been signed so he had to get in touch with him. My mother-in-law knew we didn't have a phone yet, so because she thought it was something urgent she gave him our friends number. That collector called the friends number told the friend he was collecting a debt and my husband (not knowing what was told or how he got the number) let the collector know we had just moved and the payment was an oversight. Of course, the collector was trying very hard to get new address, phone, employer, etc but we did not have that yet. The bill was paid, yet they continued to call his parents and the friend after they had new contact info for him. Keep in mind, this was over a late $10 payment. I understand they are trying to collect a debt but doing so by false statements and telling others of the debt should never be allowed.
My question is: if a collector cannot say a consumer owes a debt, then how is they messages saying "this message is an attempt to collect a debt"? Shouldn't they just be allowed to leave a name and contact number?
S.K.
1
I too, do not answer calls with no name, no number or 800 numbers. After over a year of unemployment and only able to get part time work, I had to give up my landline. I get repeated unknown calls on my cell, even though all creditors were sent written notices not to contact my cell number. I'm almost at a point that I cannot afford my cell, but if it give it up I have no way to get contact from a potential employer. When I get a full time job I will gladly pay my debts, but constant calls will not get the debt paid any faster. Not one company called me to give the the credit, so they should not call my cell and cost me more money that will prolong them getting paid. Besides, most of the calls are robo-calls with no message ever being left so I never know who the call is for.
View this comment in the discussion thread
S.K.
2
Dan says that the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits creditors from using automated dialing systems to call cell phone numbers without consent from the customer" and that sounds reasonable if that were true. I receive countless ro-bo calls on my cell, to which most never leave a message so there is no way to report it. To add to that, I have sent written notice to all creditors not to call my cell because of the charges, yet someone is calling. I do not answer those unknown calls because I have nothing more to add to any previous calls about the debt. The only call that has ever left a message is about a debt for someone else, too which I called and told them ithey have the wrong number and not to call, but they still call.
View this comment in the discussion thread
S.K.
3
Calls at work are too instrusive. Most companies, like mine, do not allow personal calls. Not all people have M-F 9-5 office jobs. If you work in a warehouse, a production line or as a cashier, you cannot take calls and it can cause issues with a supervisor. As someone who has answered a company phone, you can tell a caller that the employee cannot take calls or that they don't work there, but that caller will repeatedly call back. My position on this is simple, if the creditor does not call to confirm employment before credit is issued, they should not call after the debt is in collection. If they confirm employment then they could also inquire about the communication policy. Personally, I am in a position of constant public contact with no available phone with me and it would be hard to immpossible to have a phone conversation without leaving my work area which would cause issues with management for my job.
View this comment in the discussion thread
S.K.
4
I have one debt in the court. Here is my issue, I never received any paperwork saying there was a court date. I did receive a letter from my bank a month after the court hearing saying they received a garnishment notice. They could've saved the court costs since I already had told them I was unemployed. Secondly, after I received the bank letter, I then received three (that's right three) garnishment hearing notices from three different companies for the same debt. Since I was unemployed I could not afford to get an attorney. It would've been nice if I could have provided the court (telephonically or by pre-trial documents) with documentation to explain why I was unable to pay the debt, but the paperwork said to only respond if you did not owe the debt. I believe court documents and debt companies should have easier and clearer paperwork for the lay person to understand their rights. And yes, debt collectors should have to provide documentation that the debt is owed and they have the right to collect.
View this comment in the discussion thread
S.K.
5
About a month after my husband left the military and before we even moved into a new place, a creditor called his parents and told them he was in the military with my husband and had papers that hadn't been signed so he had to get in touch with him. My mother-in-law knew we didn't have a phone yet, so because she thought it was something urgent she gave him our friends number. That collector called the friends number told the friend he was collecting a debt and my husband (not knowing what was told or how he got the number) let the collector know we had just moved and the payment was an oversight. Of course, the collector was trying very hard to get new address, phone, employer, etc but we did not have that yet. The bill was paid, yet they continued to call his parents and the friend after they had new contact info for him. Keep in mind, this was over a late $10 payment. I understand they are trying to collect a debt but doing so by false statements and telling others of the debt should never be allowed. My question is: if a collector cannot say a consumer owes a debt, then how is they messages saying "this message is an attempt to collect a debt"? Shouldn't they just be allowed to leave a name and contact number?
View this comment in the discussion thread