Harassment or Abuse

[David A. Szwak]

HARASSMENT OR ABUSE

The FDCPA prohibits "any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt." 15 U.S.C. 1692d. Among the conduct specifically defined as harassment or abuse is the threat of violence, obscene or profane language, the publication of a list of debtors, the advertisement of a debt in order to coerce payment, repeated telephone calls, and telephone calls without disclosure of the caller's identity. Horkey v. J.V.D.B. & Assocs., Inc., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12512 (7th Cir. 2003).

[David A. Szwak]

"[C]laims under Section 1692d should be viewed from the prospective of a consumer whose circumstances make him relatively more susceptible to harassment, oppression, and abuse". Jeter v. Collection Bureau, Inc., supra 760 F.2d 1168, 1179 (11th Cir. 1985). Debt collection letters have been found to be harassing, oppressive, and abusive. Harvey v. United Adjustors, 509 F.Supp. 1218 (U.S.D.C. Or. 1991). Contra, Chapman v. Ontra, Inc., 1997 WestLaw 321681 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 1997). Immediate return telephone calls by the debt collector to the consumer containing abusive comments also violate this section. Bingham v. Collection Bureau, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 864 (U.S.D.C. N.D. 1981). Using a set of aliases when telephoning consumers violated 1692d(6) by placing telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity. Arslan v. Florida First Federal Group, 1995 WestLaw 731175 (U.S.D.C. M.D.Fla. 1995).

[David A. Szwak]

Debt collectors will sometimes engage in conduct that is both abusive and actually makes it less likely that the creditor will be paid. Contacts with consumers at their place of employment in a manner that jeopardizes their jobs frequently can be so described. Any such conduct should be found to be harassing, abusive and oppressive. Pittman v. J.J. Mac Intyre co., 969 F.Supp. 609 (U.S.D.C. Nev. 1997).