Collectors blocking there number

[rooster0330]

Are they allowed to call as "unknown" or "blocked", I thought they had to display there number. I have received a couple of calls like this and it turned out to be CA. I live in New Jersey

[justbroke]

That's actually an FDCPA violation. They are no longer allowed to "block" phone numbers or even "spoof" numbers. Was this to your cell phone or home phone?

[flyinbroke]

In my state, it is against the law for even the OC to do this. Doesn't stop them though.

[rooster0330]

That's actually an FDCPA violation. They are no longer allowed to "block" phone numbers or even "spoof" numbers. Was this to your cell phone or home phone?

These have been to my home number and my cell number!!! I told one today you cannot block your number, and she said I have no idea what you are talking about!

Is there really an recourse? Except to tell them.....Its just annoying, because I try to answer, and I know that these blocked numbers are collections, but at lease I know who they are before I pick up...

[justbroke]

It's hard to prove, but if you do legwork, you can file with the USDC (U.S. District Court) for an FDCPA violation (at about $1,000 per incident). Most people find it too much trouble to go through. That's why these companies keep getting away with it.

If you want to build a case, start recording the date and time, the company name (ask when they answer), and "number" ("blocked", "unavailable", or otherwise) and file a case with the USDC if you're so inclined. Unless you live in a major city that has a USDC "Division" there, it may be a pain to do so, and hence why this still keeps occurring.

I'm all for people standing up for their rights. I have never filed such a complaint before myself. I guess it's because I don't have the time to deal with it.

[rooster0330]

It's hard to prove, but if you do legwork, you can file with the USDC (U.S. District Court) for an FDCPA violation (at about $1,000 per incident). Most people find it too much trouble to go through. That's why these companies keep getting away with it.

If you want to build a case, start recording the date and time, the company name (ask when they answer), and "number" ("blocked", "unavailable", or otherwise) and file a case with the USDC if you're so inclined. Unless you live in a major city that has a USDC "Division" there, it may be a pain to do so, and hence why this still keeps occurring.

I'm all for people standing up for their rights. I have never filed such a complaint before myself. I guess it's because I don't have the time to deal with it.

I totally don't have the time either LOL!!! it is just very irritating!!!


I am retaining our attorney on Tuesday, so from that point on all calls with be his problem!!!!!!!

Thanks for the info though!!!

[optimistic1]

Interesting, Firstsource Advantage spoofs, they even get the area code the same as mine.

[WhatMoney]

Blocked numbers - Out of Area - Private Number - N/A - (000) 000-0000, and spoofed numbers are a way of life for many collectors. This has been going on ever since Caller ID was invented.

My caller ID logs have thousands of these calls in the last 5 years. There is not much you can do about it. Proving the deliberate blocking would require time stamped recorded phone calls and caller ID logs submitted as an affidavit to a court. Unless you are the FBI running a sting, I think your chances of proving and prosecuting them for blocked calls is slim to none.

And which laws specifically make this illegal now? Failure of a creditor to identify their company during a phone conversation is not the same as spoofing or hiding your caller ID.

[justbroke]

Using "unavailable" is probably not a violation, but modifying the number to "hide" the identity or to put a false identity on the call is under 15 USC 1692 as a "deceptive" practice. I agree too that this can be difficult to prove, but my voicemail records the CALLER ID with it, so I can actually match the caller.

I also have logs since I have a VOIP based system here at home, which also records calls based on the CALLER ID... for all incoming calls. It even warns callers that the call "may be monitored or recorded" for quality purposes. Most creditors hung up when they heard that.

[flyinbroke]

In Texas, anonymous or private calls are against the law. At least they are according to the attorney general's website. It is considered a hiding of identity. I guess there are a slew of rules for telephonic communications that are considered to be violated for spoofed numbers, of which 000-000-0000 is. There are also laws governing robocallers on cell phones and other situations too.

Mine have been kind enough to leave half recorded messages since I put a voicemail identifying this phone as mine. I saved them.

[albacore44]

Got plenty of those. if I get a call that says unavaliable, or I dont recognize the#, i dont answer. what I found wierd was a few calls that just displayed a 3 digit #, nothing else

[treehugger1]

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act also comes into play:

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/TCPA-Rules.pdf

Many states honor a private consumer's right under the act, to be heard in state court systems At $500 per violation, you could really drive them nuts if you had the time and patience. Hmmm...small claims?

[WhatMoney]

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act also comes into play:

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/TCPA-Rules.pdf

Many states honor a private consumer's right under the act, to be heard in state court systems At $500 per violation, you could really drive them nuts if you had the time and patience. Hmmm...small claims?

This FCC rule applies only to telemarketers. Collection agencies holding your debt do not apply. The FCC rule is also weak - with only a warning for the first violation. And getting the FCC to act on individual cases is difficult, even if it did apply to CA Caller ID spoofing.

Likewise the Texas laws do not prevent collectors from telephone number spoofing. Their law is for telemarketers and anyone who is trying to hide their identity in the course of the telephone conversation, for fraudulent purposes. This is the Texas lawsuit filed by the AG against some insurance brokers misrepresenting themselves on the telephone:
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/...mmedia_pop.pdf

There is a House Bill HR1110 that passed the House of Representatives last December, and is stuck in a Senate subcommittee as of now. It comes closer to prohibiting Caller ID spoofing, with serious penalties. But it is not yet a law, and may never make it. Don't be surprised to see Collection Agencies from being exempt by the time a final version is presented. Here's the House version text:

H. R. 1110
12/16/2009--Passed House amended.

Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act of 2009 or the PHONE Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) impose a fine, a five-year prison term, or both, on anyone who knowingly uses or provides to another, in interstate or foreign commerce, false caller ID information with intent to wrongfully obtain anything of value; and (2) impose a fine, a one-year prison term, or both, on anyone who knowingly provides caller ID information with the intent to deceive the recipient of the call about the identify of the caller. Exempts from such prohibitions authorized activities of a U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agency. Provides for criminal forfeiture of any gains from violations of this Act and of any equipment, software, or other technology used to commit such violations.

Note that even this wording (my bold facing) would not make caller ID spoofing illegal by collection agencies, or anyone else that was not trying to commit a crime. Attempting to collect a debt is not a crime.
.

[treehugger1]

Whatmoney, Thanks for the clarification. However, it is my understanding that the creditor had to have received a cell phone number from the debtor, not the CA.

The FCC ruling is here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-232A1.pdf

Specifically:

10. We emphasize that prior express consent is deemed to be granted only if the wireless
number was provided by the consumer to the creditor, and that such number was provided during the
transaction that resulted in the debt owed.36 To ensure that creditors and debt collectors call only those
consumers who have consented to receive autodialed and prerecorded message calls, we conclude that
the creditor should be responsible for demonstrating that the consumer provided prior express consent.
The creditors are in the best position to have records kept in the usual course of business showing such
consent, such as purchase agreements, sales slips, and credit applications.37 Should a question arise as to
whether express consent was provided, the burden will be on the creditor to show it obtained the
necessary prior express consent. Similarly, a creditor on whose behalf an autodialed or prerecorded
message call is made to a wireless number bears the responsibility for any violation of the Commission’s
rules. Calls placed by a third party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself
placed the call.

11. We also reiterate that the plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) prohibits the use of
autodialers to make any call to a wireless number in the absence of an emergency or the prior express
consent of the called party.39 We note that this prohibition applies regardless of the content of the call,
and is not limited only to calls that constitute “telephone solicitations.”40 However, we agree with ACA
and other commenters that calls solely for the purpose of debt collection are not telephone solicitations
and do not constitute telemarketing.41 Therefore, calls regarding debt collection or to recover payments
are not subject to the TCPA’s separate restrictions on “telephone solicitations.”42

14. Moreover, the Commission noted that the TCPA does not ban the use of automated
dialing technology.49 It merely prohibits such technologies from dialing emergency numbers, health care
facilities, telephone numbers assigned to wireless services, and any other numbers for which the
consumer is charged for the call. Such practices were determined by Congress to threaten public safety
and inappropriately shift costs to consumers. Most importantly, the Commission said that, to find that
calls to emergency numbers, health care facilities, and wireless numbers are permissible when the dialing
equipment is paired with predictive dialing software and a database of numbers, but prohibited when the
equipment operates independently of such lists, would be inconsistent with the avowed purpose of the
TCPA and the intent of Congress in protecting consumers from such calls.50 ACA raises no new information about predictive dialers that warrants reconsideration of these findings.51 With this ruling,
however, creditors and debt collectors may use predictive dialers to call wireless phones, provided the
wireless phone number was provided by the subscriber in connection with the existing debt.52 We note,
however, that where the subscriber has not made the number available to the creditor regarding the debt,
we expect debt collectors to be able to utilize the same methods and resources that telemarketers have
found adequate to determine which numbers are assigned to wireless carriers,53 and to comply with the
TCPA’s prohibition on telephone calls using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice message
to wireless numbers.54


And, it is also my understanding that if you send a C&D, and the CA calls, especially a cell number that was never divulged to either the creditor or CA, then this is a violation of both the TCPA and FDCPA. If I have time next week, I'll research some cases.

[treehugger1]

Sorry so far off of original topic

Here is a discussion of the FCC ruling:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5315/is_200803/ai_n25137911/?tag=content;col1

It is also my understanding that the FCC is taking a second look at its 2008 ruling. I have not been able to find a copy of the new proposed changes.