Debt Harassment News:

Harassing Telephone Calls

CALL NOW - NO COST TO YOU  866.553.3272

By reading the cases below, you acknowledge that the results represent previous debt collection harassment cases and are for information purposes only.  This information has not been reviewed or approved by the Florida Bar.  This list does not include all cases handled by the law firm.

The results are not designed to suggest a particular outcome in your case.  The facts and circumstances in your case may differ from the matter in which results are provided.  Each case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.

 

Plaintiff v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc.

Case No. 8:08-cv-700-T-30MSS

Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of the plaintiff concerning an alleged debt being collected by Credit Bureau of Napa County,Inc. d/b/a Chase Receivables arising from an alleged debt for the purchase of a school alumni directory.

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes§ 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). The plaintiff sent a written demand to Chase Receivables to cease and desist from communicating with her in regards to collection of the alleged debt. Chase Receivables continued to call the plaintiff’s cell phone after receiving her written to demand to cease communications in violation of the FDCPA.

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

Plaintiff v. United Recovery Systems, LP

Case No. 5:07-cv-415-OC-10GRJ

Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division on behalf of the plaintiff concerning numerous harassing telephone calls by a debt collector, United Recovery Systems, LP. The complaint alleges that in May of 2007, the plaintiff became the target of an aggressive collection campaign when he began to receive telephone calls on his dedicated work cell phone from an employee of the debt collector, United Recovery Systems, LP. the plaintiff was receiving up to five(5) telephone calls on his work cell phone from debt collector United Recovery Systems, LP in a single day. During most of the phone calls, the plaintiff asked the debt collector not to call him on his work cell phone and that any future telephone calls regarding the Alleged Debt be placed to him on his home phone.

The complaint in the above-styled case alleges violationsof the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the“FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). FDCPA's provision § 1692c(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication. Another FDCPA alleged in the complaint concerns § 1692d. Under15 U.S.C. § 1692d provides, in pertinent part, a debt collector may not cause a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number, use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

Additionally, under Florida Statutes § 559.72 a debt collector may not willfully communicate with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family.

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

Plaintiff v. LTD Financial Services, LP

Case No. 3:07-cv-00455-J-16-MCR

Saxon Gilmore settled a case pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on behalf of the plaintiff concerning multiple harassing telephone calls she received from this defendant debt collector at her place of employment. The plaintiff had advised the debt collector that she was not permitted to receive personal calls at work, but, they continued to contact her. Concerned about the negative impact this could have on her job, she located our law firm on the internet and within minutes was speaking directly with a partner in the firm's consumer rights department. With the plaintiff on the phone, the lawyer assigned to her case contacted the defendant debt collector and advised that the plaintiff was now represented by the firm and that all future correspondence, via telephone or otherwise, should be directed to Saxon Gilmore rather than the plaintiff.  The defendant debt collector was also advised that the plaintiff disputed the validity of the underlying debt.

Several days later, despite receiving notification of Saxon Gilmore's representation, the defendant debt collector again contacted the plaintiff at her place of business. Within a few days, the above-styled case was filed alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's ("FDCPA") provision governing communication with consumers. 15 U.S.C.§ 1692c(a)(2) generally prohibits debt collectors from communicating with consumers represented by an attorney and 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3) generally prohibits debt collectors from communicating with consumers at work when the consumer's employer prohibits such communication. In addition to the FDCPA claims, Saxon Gilmore also brought claims against the defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), Fla.Stat. § 559.72(4), (7) and (18), which generally prohibits the same abusive and harassing debt collection activities as the FDCPA.

The matter settled prior to trial.