FDCPA ANNOTATED

§ 1692b. Acquisition of location information

. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Current through P.L. 107-48, approved 10-12-01

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall--

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;

(3) not communicate with any such person more than once unless requested to do so by such person or unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information;

(4) not communicate by post card;

(5) not use any language or symbol on any envelope or in the contents of any communication effected by the mails or telegram that indicates that the debt collector is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt; and

(6) after the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with regard to the subject debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, not communicate with any person other than that attorney, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to communication from the debt collector.

CREDIT(S)

1997 Main Volume

(Pub.L. 90-321, Title VIII, § 804, as added Pub.L. 95-109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 876.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and Legislative Reports

1968 Acts. House Report No. 1040 and Conference Report No. 1397, see 1968 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1962.

1977 Acts. Senate Report No. 95-382, see 1977 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1695.

AMERICAN LAW REPORTS

Validity, construction, and application of state statutes prohibiting abusive or coercive debt collection practices. 87 ALR3d 786

LIBRARY REFERENCES

Administrative Law

Limitations on communications, see West's Federal Administrative Practice § 3514.

American Digest System

Consumer Protection 10.

Encyclopedias

C.J.S. Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition § 237.

17 Am. Jur. 2d, Consumer and Borrower Protection § § 194, 203

Actionable Practices in Debt Collection, 18 Am Jur Proof of Facts, p. 59

Action for Harassment of Debtor, 16 Am Jur Trials, p. 619

Texts and Treatises

Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts § § 41.3, 61.4, 61.7 (Robert L. Haig ed.) (West Group & ABA 1998).

7 Fed. Proc. L Ed Consumer Credit Protection § § 15:67, 68

Fonseca, Handling Consumer Credit Cases

§ 1692c. Communication in connection with debt collection

. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Current through P.L. 107-48, approved 10-12-01

(a) Communication with the consumer generally

Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt--

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;

(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or

(3) 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.

(b) Communication with third parties

Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except--

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

(d) "Consumer" defined

For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.

CREDIT(S)

1997 Main Volume

(Pub.L. 90-321, Title VIII, § 805, as added Pub.L. 95-109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 876.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and Legislative Reports

1968 Acts. House Report No. 1040 and Conference Report No. 1397, see 1968 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1962.

1977 Acts. Senate Report No. 95-382, see 1977 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1695.

AMERICAN LAW REPORTS

Validity, construction, and application of state statutes prohibiting abusive or coercive debt collection practices. 87 ALR3d 786

LIBRARY REFERENCES

Administrative Law

Limitations on communications, see West's Federal Administrative Practice § 3514.

American Digest System

Consumer Protection 10.

Encyclopedias

C.J.S. Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition § 237.

17 Am. Jur. 2d, Consumer and Borrower Protection § § 194, 204

Actionable Practices in Debt Collection, 18 Am Jur Proof of Facts, p. 59

Action for Harassment of Debtor, 16 Am Jur Trials, p. 619

Law Review and Journal Commentaries

Acceleration notices and demand letters. Manuel H. Newburger, 47 Consumer Fin.L.Q.Rep. 338 (1993).

Texts and Treatises

Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts § § 41.3, 61.4, 61.7 (Robert L. Haig ed.) (West Group & ABA 1998).

7 Fed. Proc. L Ed Consumer Credit Protection § § 15:67, 68, 74

Fonseca, Handling Consumer Credit Cases

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Ceasing communications 8

Purpose 1

Representation by attorney 2-5

Representation by attorney - Generally 2

Representation by attorney - Separate accounts 4

Representation by attorney - Specific communications 5

Representation by attorney - Without knowledge of representation 3

Separate accounts 4

Specific communications 5

Third party 6

Time or place of communication 7

Without knowledge of representation 3

1. Purpose

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, § 1692c(a)(2) [Consumer Credit Protection Act, § 805(a)(2), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692c(a)(2)], which prohibits debt collector from communicating with debtor about debt after debt collector knows that debtor is represented by attorney with respect to debt, was designed to prevent repeated phone calls and letters directed to debtor after debt collector knows that person to be represented by attorney. Bieber v. Associated Collection Services, Inc., D.Kan.1986, 631 F.Supp. 1410.

2. Representation by attorney--Generally

Out-of-state attorney, in his capacity as debt collector retained to assist in recovering on dishonored check, did not threaten to take legal action which he could not take, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), merely by failing to reveal in his collection letter that he was not licensed to practice in state; letter clearly revealed that, "[i]f legal action is taken and a lawsuit is filed, it will be handled by an attorney within your state." O'Connor v. Check Rite, Ltd., D.Colo.1997, 973 F.Supp. 1010.

Section of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requiring debt collector to "send the consumer" a written debt validation notice had to be interpreted in manner consistent with separate FDCPA provision, which prohibited debt collector from communicating directly with debtor if it knew that debtor was represented by attorney, so as to permit debtor collector to send validation notice to debtor's attorney when it knew of representation. Blum v. Fisher and Fisher, N.D.Ill.1997, 961 F.Supp. 1218.

Debt collector, by contacting debtor by mail five days after learning that she was being represented by attorney, clearly violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); debt collector did not contend that debtor's attorney failed to respond to any of its communications during relevant period. Herbert v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., D.Conn.1994, 863 F.Supp. 76.

Debt collector, president of which knew that consumer was represented by attorney when collection notices were sent to her, violated this subchapter by corresponding with consumer while she was represented by counsel in absence of any evidence that consumer, her counsel or any court agreed to permit direct communication with consumer. Harvey v. United Adjusters, D.C.Or.1981, 509 F.Supp. 1218.

Chapter 13 debtor failed to establish that legal services plan, which filed debtor's bankruptcy petition, was retained by debtor with respect to specified debt, prior to debt collector's communication with debtor; therefore, debtor failed to establish that debt collector violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provision prohibiting unauthorized communications with debtor if debt collector knows that debtor has legal representation with respect to the debt. Hubbard v. National Bond and Collection Associates, Inc., D.Del.1991, 126 B.R. 422, affirmed 947 F.2d 935.

3. ---- Without knowledge of representation

Debt collector did not violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by communicating directly with consumer, even though consumer had retained counsel to help him dispute debt being collected, where debt collector had no knowledge that consumer was represented by counsel "with respect to such debt." Graziano v. Harrison, C.A.3 (N.J.) 1991, 950 F.2d 107.

Debt collection notices that debt collector sent directly to consumers in July, August, and September 1992 did not violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provision prohibiting communication with consumer if debt collector knows consumer is represented by attorney "with respect to such debt," where it was shown that collector first learned that consumers were represented by counsel with respect to debt at issue after October 27, 1992. Robinson v. Transworld Systems, Inc., N.D.N.Y.1995, 876 F.Supp. 385.

4. ---- Separate accounts

Collector did not violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to cease direct communication with debtor once he was notified that debtor had retained counsel with respect to debt by continuing to send collection notices to the debtor where the subsequent collection notices pertained to different debts as to which collector had not been informed that debtor was retained by counsel. Graziano v. Harrison, D.N.J.1991, 763 F.Supp. 1269,reversed in part, vacated in part 950 F.2d 107.

Dunning notices sent by debt collector after it had received notice from debtor's attorney to communicate only with attorney did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where they referred to debts other than those which had been assigned to the debt collector at the time of the communication from the attorney, debt collector would not be charged with knowledge that the attorney represented the debtor with respect to debts assigned to the debt collector after the date of the attorney's letter, even though those debts were assigned by the same creditor which assigned the earlier debts. Masuda v. Thomas Richards & Co., C.D.Cal.1991, 759 F.Supp. 1456.

5. ---- Specific communications

Telephone call made by debt collector's employee, allegedly attempting to collect debt by calling debtor after he had given notice not to call again and after debt collector had been notified that debtor was represented by counsel on all his debts, was not violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as call was result of bona fide error; debtor's account was miscoded accidentally in debt collector's computer, notwithstanding maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid such error. Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1996, 911 F.Supp. 290, affirmed 135 F.3d 389.

Evidence established that debt collection agency had knowledge of fact that debtor was represented by attorney when it sent letter to debtor, and thus that agency was in technical violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in bypassing attorney; attorney called agency after criminal action against debtor was concluded and made offer on behalf of debtor to settle matter. Pearce v. Rapid Check Collection, Inc., D.S.D.1990, 738 F.Supp. 334.

Single additional question of debt collector, after debtor advised it to contact her attorney, as to whether debtors were planning to file petition in bankruptcy, was not so extensive as to have been kind of additional "communication" prohibited after debt collector knows that debtor is represented by attorney with respect to debt, nor was question designed to harass or abuse debtors. Bieber v. Associated Collection Services, Inc., D.Kan.1986, 631 F.Supp. 1410.

Debt collector directly communicated with debtors represented by attorney in violation of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by directing letters to them without acknowledging attorney's representation, though letters were sent to attorney's office. Clark's Jewelers v. Humble, Kan.App.1991, 823 P.2d 818, 16 Kan.App.2d 366.

Sending demand letter directly to debtor after collection agency had been advised that debtor was represented by counsel violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even though Wyoming statute required that notice be given to drawer of dishonored check. Johnson v. Statewide Collections, Inc., Wyo.1989, 778 P.2d 93.

6. Third party

Dismissal was appropriate of debtor's claim that debt collector's contacts and attempted contacts with supplemental cardholders and with debtor's neighbors were attempts to collect debt after notice not to do so, in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); claim was outside pleadings, and any attempt to amend after close of debtor's evidence to plead claim was unfairly prejudicial to debt collector, which had not discovered nor prepared with intention of trying claim. Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1996, 911 F.Supp. 290, affirmed 135 F.3d 389.

Affidavit of consumer's secretary that employee of debt collector called consumer's office and spoke to secretary in connection with collection of consumer's debt established violation of provision of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibiting improper communication with third parties; although debt collector's counsel challenged secretary's allegations, debt collector provided no allegation or other evidence contesting secretary's affidavit in any way and bald assertion that affidavit was inaccurate or credible was insufficient to defeat consumer's motion for summary judgment. Austin v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, Inc., D.Conn.1993, 834 F.Supp. 557.

Statement by debt collector in second notice indicating that all information obtained in investigation would be used in collection of debt was simply reiteration of required notice in follow-up collection letter, and words "in our investigation" did not threaten improper third-party contact in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gaetano v. Payco of Wisconsin, Inc., D.Conn.1990, 774 F.Supp. 1404.

Letter sent by debt collection agency to federal credit union on which debtor's insufficient funds checks were drawn was not communication with "third party" in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; there was no chance that letter was used to embarrass debtor or that invasion of privacy or loss of employment could occur, and agency could reasonably have thought that credit union was at least partly liable for money owed, particularly in view of fact that negligence or mistake by credit union was defense at debtor's criminal trial. Pearce v. Rapid Check Collection, Inc., D.S.D.1990, 738 F.Supp. 334.

Debtor's mother, who was not obligated to pay any debt, was not a "consumer" within meaning of section 1692a of this title, and, in view of such fact, the mother, who was contacted by debt collector in attempt to collect the debt, was not entitled to recover under this section prohibiting certain third-party contacts. West v. Costen, W.D.Va.1983, 558 F.Supp. 564.

Co-worker's telephone message slip, stating that notice of foreclosure was being served on debtor's wife, failed to show that communication regarding debt owed by debtor was made to third party in violation of this subchapter. Committe v. Dennis Reimer Co., L.P.A., D.Vt.1993, 150 F.R.D. 495.

Collection letter addressed to consumer at his place of employment under circumstances which were such that reasonable person, in consumer's position, would be humiliated and embarrassed, was a violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, § 802, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692, and creditor was liable for any mental and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation caused by the letter. Kleczy v. First Federal Credit Control, Inc., Ohio App.1984, 486 N.E.2d 204, 21 Ohio App.3d 56, 21 O.B.R. 59.

7. Time or place of communication

Debt collector did not violate provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) regulating its communications with consumer generally, though debt collector had admittedly mailed copy of its letter to consumer at his place of employment, absent any evidence that debt collector knew or had reason to know that consumer's employer prohibited him from receiving such communications at workplace. Adams v. Law Offices of Stuckert & Yates, E.D.Pa.1996, 926 F.Supp. 521.

Debt collection agency's willful and repeated disregard of consumer's clear request to discontinue its attempts to contact consumer at her office constituted direct violation of provision of Fair Debt Collection Act prohibiting debt collector from contacting consumer at time or place known to be inconvenient to consumer. Austin v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, Inc., D.Conn.1993, 834 F.Supp. 557.

Government established by preponderance of evidence that collection agency and many of its debt collectors, including some supervisors and managers in regional collection offices, used abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; evidence indicated that telephone calls were made to debtors before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m., that debtors' places of employment were called after agency was told not to do so by debtors or employers, that third parties were contacted about debts without debtors' consent, that racial slurs and obscenities were used in attempting to collect debts, and that collectors falsely represented to debtors that they would be arrested or jailed or that property would be seized or garnished. U.S. v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., N.D.Tex.1986, 667 F.Supp. 370, affirmed as modified on other grounds 823 F.2d 880.

8. Ceasing communications

Consumer failed to establish that he had made written request that debt collector cease any further communications, as required for consumer to prevail under section of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibiting further communications following such a written request, based solely on the fact that following such an alleged communication, of which consumer presented no direct written evidence, debt collector had mailed collection letter which specifically referred to this section of the FDCPA. O'Connor v. Check Rite, Ltd., D.Colo.1997, 973 F.Supp. 1010.

§ 1692d. Harassment or abuse

. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Current through P.L. 107-48, approved 10-12-01

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.

(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.

(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681a(f) or 1681b(3) of this title.

(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.

(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.

(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity.

CREDIT(S)

1997 Main Volume

(Pub.L. 90-321, Title VIII, § 806, as added Pub.L. 95-109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 877.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and Legislative Reports

1968 Acts. House Report No. 1040 and Conference Report No. 1397, see 1968 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1962.

1977 Acts. Senate Report No. 95-382, see 1977 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1695.

AMERICAN LAW REPORTS

Validity, construction, and application of state statutes prohibiting abusive or coercive debt collection practices. 87 ALR3d 786

LIBRARY REFERENCES

Administrative Law

Prohibited types of conduct by debt collector, see West's Federal Administrative Practice § 3515.

American Digest System

Consumer Protection 10.

Encyclopedias

C.J.S. Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition § 237.

17 Am. Jur. 2d, Consumer and Borrower Protection § § 194, 205, 206

Actionable Practices in Debt Collection, 18 Am Jur Proof of Facts, p. 59

Action for Harassment of Debtor, 16 Am Jur Trials, p. 619

Law Review and Journal Commentaries

Constitutionality of requiring telephone companies to protect their subscribers from telemarketing calls. James A. Albert, 33 Santa Clara L.Rev. 51 (1993).

Texts and Treatises

Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts § § 41.3, 61.4, 61.7 (Robert L. Haig ed.) (West Group & ABA 1998).

7 Fed. Proc. L Ed Consumer Credit Protection § § 15:67, 68, 74

Fonseca, Handling Consumer Credit Cases

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Burden of proof 8

Civil action 2

Harassment, generally 1

Inconvenience and embarrassment 6

Least sophisticated consumer standards 7

Letters 3

Nonabusive statements encouraging payment 5

Summary judgment 9

Telephone ringing or conversations 4

1. Harassment, generally

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, § 1692d [Consumer Credit Protection Act, § 806, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692d], prohibiting debt collector from engaging in any conduct designed to harass, oppress, or abuse debtor, prohibits debtor's tender sensibilities only from oppressive and outrageous conduct; some inconvenience or embarrassment is natural consequence of debt collection. Bieber v. Associated Collection Services, Inc., D.Kan.1986, 631 F.Supp. 1410.

Use of alias or "desk name" by individual debt collector who otherwise accurately discloses name of her employer and nature of its business and conceals no more than her real name, does not constitute conduct prohibited by Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, § 806(6), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692d(6). Kleczy v. First Federal Credit Control, Inc., Ohio App.1984, 486 N.E.2d 204, 21 Ohio App.3d 56, 21 O.B.R. 59.

2. Civil action

Attorney's claim that he would seek attorney's fees and costs if legal action were commenced was neither false nor oppressive and complied with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; contract between consumer buyer and seller provided for payment of attorney fees and costs in collection action. Dorsey v. Morgan, D.Md.1991, 760 F.Supp. 509.

Evidence failed to establish that debtors suffered harassment and abuse because of improper discussions by collector, of possibility, and foreseeable consequences of civil action to collect. Bingham v. Collection Bureau, Inc., D.C.N.D.1981, 505 F.Supp. 864.

3. Letters

Debt collection agency's letters stating that debtor owed named creditor, that subject amount had not been paid and that unless satisfactory arrangements were made within five days the agency would recommend suit or subsequent action and that last letter was final notice before recommending that creditor to turn account over to its lawyer and that although it might cause embarrassment and inconvenience such would be done if balance was not paid within five days did not fall within Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's proscription on use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the reader. Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985, 760 F.2d 1168.

Debt collection agency's letters stating that unless satisfactory arrangements were made within five days the agency would recommend suit and subsequent action and recommend giving account to attorney for legal action and stating that although legal proceedings might cause embarrassment, inconvenience and further expense such would be recommended if entire balance were not paid did not constitute harassment or abuse in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985, 760 F.2d 1168.

Reference in second collection notice from debt collector giving debtor "THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE THIS MATTER IN A FRIENDLY MANNER," following first notice in which debt collector stated it would resort to all approved means to collect debt, did not imply that debt collector would resort to unfriendly methods including violence if friendly methods did not succeed, in violation of provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibiting harassing, oppressing, or abusive conduct in connection with collection of a debt. Gaetano v. Payco of Wisconsin, Inc., D.Conn.1990, 774 F.Supp. 1404.

There was no harassment or abuse of debtor by debt collector, even though first collection letter contained a threat to file suit, where all other letters were reserved and respectful in tone. Graziano v. Harrison, D.N.J.1991, 763 F.Supp. 1269,reversed in part, vacated in part 950 F.2d 107.

Even if all of the alleged 48 letters sent to debtor by debt collector over a period of eight months referred to the same debt, the mailing of six letters per month would not be "harassing." Masuda v. Thomas Richards & Co., C.D.Cal.1991, 759 F.Supp. 1456.

Letter from debt collection agency threatening civil suit if debtor did not pay debt did not amount to harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where threat involved action that could lawfully be taken and was in fact carried out. Pearce v. Rapid Check Collection, Inc., D.S.D.1990, 738 F.Supp. 334.

Letter which was sent by debt collector to consumer and which implied that consumer removed her head when she received letters from collector, that she ignored her mail and her bills, and that she lacked common sense to handle her financial matters properly, when in fact she had called collector in response to earlier letter and her call had not been returned, violated this section, which prohibits a debt collector from engaging in any conduct that harasses or abuses any person in connection with collection of debt. Harvey v. United Adjusters, D.C.Or.1981, 509 F.Supp. 1218.

Letter to plaintiff from defendant collection agency violated harassment provision of this subchapter, where the letter had the natural and intended consequence of harassing, oppressing, and abusing the recipient, where the tone of the letter was one of intimidation and was intended as such in order to effect a collection, and where the threat of an investigation and resulting embarrassment to the alleged debtor was clear. Rutyna v. Collection Accounts Terminal, Inc., N.D.Ill.1979, 478 F.Supp. 980.

Notices sent by collection bureau to debtor did not "harass" or "abuse" debtor under this subchapter, where notices did not continually speak to criminal prosecution until third week, topic of criminal sanctions was not initially and persistently mentioned, issuance of bad checks was misdemeanor under state law, and language used was not wrongful in speech, coarsely disparaging, or maligning. In re Scrimpsher, Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982, 17 B.R. 999.

4. Telephone ringing or conversations

Debtors stated claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) section proscribing conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass or oppress any person; debtors testified that debt collector's agent was intimidating and threatening in her phone conversations with debtors, debtor described threats of garnishment accompanied by demands for overnight sending of payments, and agent called debtor at work after debtor had twice requested that she not be phoned at her place of employment. Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1994, 15 F.3d 1507.

Use of desk name, an alias, by debt collector's employee, did not violate this section prohibiting placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of caller's identity. Wright v. Credit Bureau of Georgia, Inc., N.D.Ga.1982, 548 F.Supp. 591, on reconsideration 555 F.Supp. 1005.

Collector's immediately recalling debtor after debtor hung up constituted harassment. Bingham v. Collection Bureau, Inc., D.C.N.D.1981, 505 F.Supp. 864.

5. Nonabusive statements encouraging payment

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act section which prohibits engaging in conduct natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with collection of debt does not preclude debt collectors from making nonabusive statements designed to encourage voluntary payment. Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., D.Del.1991, 754 F.Supp. 383.

6. Inconvenience and embarrassment

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act section which prohibits engaging in conduct natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with collection of debt prohibits only oppressive and outrageous conduct; it is not intended to shield even least sophisticated recipients of debt collection activities from inconvenience and embarrassment that are natural consequences of debt collection. Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., D.Del.1991, 754 F.Supp. 383.

7. Least sophisticated consumer standard

The "least sophisticated consumer" standard is not precisely applicable to claims of harassment or abuse in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but the consumer protective purposes of the Act requires adoption of an analogous standard in harassment and abuse cases and such claim should be viewed from the prospective of a consumer whose circumstances make him relatively more susceptible to harassment, oppression or abuse. Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985, 760 F.2d 1168.

8. Burden of proof

Consumer, who alleged that debt collector violated this section by making abusive and obscene phone calls to her, failed to meet her burden of proving that such phone calls were made by collector. Harvey v. United Adjusters, D.C.Or.1981, 509 F.Supp. 1218.

9. Summary judgment

Material fact issue existed whether debt collection agency, which sent letters stating that it would recommend legal action unless satisfactory arrangements were made within five days, ever intended to recommend legal action against debtor, precluding summary judgment on claim that agency violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by threatening to take action not intended to be taken. Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985, 760 F.2d 1168.

In action against debt collector for violation of this subchapter, summary judgment for either party was precluded by issue of whether defendant's employee's statements to debtor violated this subchapter on theory that they would have deceived unsophisticated listener to believe that defendant was acting as credit bureau rather than debt collector. Wright v. Credit Bureau of Georgia, Inc., N.D.Ga.1982, 548 F.Supp. 591, on reconsideration 555 F.Supp. 1005.