A debt collector must verify the identity of a communication recipient to ensure proper party contact while avoiding disclosure of the existence of the debt to a third party. Thus, a debt collector must, when asked, provide meaningful information about the purpose of a telephone call to a third party – even when the third party refuses to identify themselves – without disclosing that the call is an attempt to collection of a debt.
In the last episode of Debt collection exercise podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by attorney Aylix Jensen who explains his recent comprehensive victory in federal court establishing that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by stating that he it was a “financial services company” caller regarding a “personal matter” to an unidentified person – the plaintiff – whom the Court identified as the correct “customer for the account”.
The case, filed in the District Court of Maryland, is Mayhall versus MRS BPO, et al., Case # GJH-19-2384; command can be found here.
insideARM started talking about this problem a few years ago. look at this for a concise video explanation of the “authentication dance” challenge faced by collectors and consumers.