Long distance and cellular calls -- what FDCPA really says

Posted by Bear (12.15.123.127) on October 20, 2002 at 06:37:49:

In Reply to: Re: Long distance and cellular calls posted by Why Chat on October 18, 2002 at 08:13:09:

The original assertion in response to Nels’s question was, "it is ILLEGAL for a collection agency to call you on a cell phone or to requre [sic] you to incur ld charges." (emphasis and error in original)

That was a blanket claim – that a collection agency cannot require the consumer to incur long distance charges. That’s not what FDCPA says. FDCPA prohibits, “Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true purpose of the communication.” 15 U.S.C. §1692f(5), enacted by P.L. 95-109 (1977).
It then gives as examples collect calls and telegram fees. Readers can see if for themselves at this link:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1692f.html

In Nels’s case, the debt collector didn’t conceal the purpose at all. How can that be a violation?

Now Why Chat says, “There have been rulings that indicated that the interpretation of "concealed purpose" included requiring "urgency" in contacting them. Can Why Chat cite one of those rulings?

To strengthen the claim that it is illegal to call a consumer on a cell phone, Why Chat asserts, “as to cell phone calls, that is covered under ‘causing charges or fees for purposes of collection.’” That phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in my copy of FDCPA. Perhaps Why Chat can provide a cite to its location in his copy.

The FDCPA section was written in 1977, long before cell phone use became common (note the now-quaint allusion to telegram fees). Since a consumer could forward his land-line calls to his cell phone and thus incur charges on the cell phone, a debt collector could never know whether he was calling a cell phone. How could the purpose of a call be concealed before it is even answered?

Adding debts abandoned and settlements received from debt collectors (so far none has resisted all the way to a reported court case -- 3 bailed out in the low 5 figures), my clients are over 150K better off. That is some evidence that I know the field.

If Why Chat is going to offer legal advice on this forum, he should get it right. He should be especially careful arguing the point with a consumer lawyer with some skill in applying the statute.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup