Debt Harassment News:

Contacting Debtor after Receiving Notification of Attorney Representation

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. 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.

 

Plaintiff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

Case No. 8:07-cv-01580-EAK-MSS

Saxon Gilmore has a case pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of the plaintiff concerning harassing telephone calls from debt collector, United Collection Bureau, Inc., (“UCB”). The complaint alleges UCB telephoned the plaintiff’s neighbor and informed the neighbor that the plaintiff owed money and demanded that the neighbor relay a message to the plaintiff. Additionally, after counsel for Saxon Gilmore contacted UCB and informed UCB that Saxon Gilmore represented the plaintiff and requested UCB to cease all communications with the plaintiff and directed that all future communications regarding the debt be directed to Saxon Gilmore, UCB contacted the plaintiff directly in an effort to collect the debt.

The complaint in the above-styled case alleges violationsof the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)and Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) provisions governing communication with consumers. FDCPA’s 15U.S.C. § 1692b provides, in pertinent part, that any debt collector or bill collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall not state that such consumer owes any debt. The complaint also alleges UCB violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)(2) by communicating with a debtor who is known to be represented by counsel. Furthermore, Saxon Gilmore alleges the debt collector violated Florida Statutes § 559.72, which is the Florida equivalent of the federal provisions mentioned above.

The matter settled prior to trial.