| |
Welcome to the Research Assistant Weekly Newsletter - a subscriber-only resource for insight into emerging compliance challenges, details on peer calls, and links to new Research Assistant reports, documents, tools, and more.
Last week, we addressed a topic that pops up from time to time: how many steps should there be in the “scorpion dance” of identifying the consumer before discussing the purpose of your call?
Case law has addressed this topic; here are two examples:
-
Prendergast v. First Choice Assets, LLC: A debt collector contacted a consumer to verify information before mailing a letter. After a few calls, the consumer told the debt collector they could mail the letter to the address the collection agency had on file but refused to provide any portion of her social security number over the telephone. The consumer alleged the calls were harassing, oppressive and abusive. The court noted that having a stranger call with your social security number and address and refusing to explain the reason for the call would unnerve anyone.
-
Smith v. I.C. System: The debt collector terminated calls without identifying themself or that the call was from a debt collector after the consumer refused to give up personal information or confirm her address. In its opinion, the court noted “[Plaintiff’s] confirmation of her name, in conjunction with the telephone number associated with her name, should have been sufficient for the [defendant] agent to identify the company’s name.” This matter cites the case described above.
We recommend a full reading of these short decisions when establishing your policies on this issue.
Documents and Crowdsourced Materials:
Top Reads:
Upcoming Webinars/ Other Announcements:
|
|
|
|
