Chapter 6

Debt Collection Experts Report Analyzing Collectors Notes

Michael P. Flannagan is the principle of Fair Collection Consulting, 8214 South D St, Tacoma, WA 98408, Website: www.FairCC.com, email: FlannaganM@Comcast.net, (253) 3155183. Mr. Flannagan specializes in collection notes transcription. He is able to translate collector script back to English. He spent 13 years in the debt collection business and supervised a large number of collectors. Mike left that business in 2002 and now uses his extensive skills and experience in collections to help others protect themselves against the very actions and tactics he once so effectively employed. Each collection company and collector uses slightly different notes; however, they all have certain similarities. While an experienced collector is not going to put in his notes that he threatened to take legal action not allowed or used profanity, Flannagan is able to recognize certain patterns in collection notes that allows him to read more into the collectors notes than are obvious to those not trained in debt collection. This chapter contains a report analyzing debt collectors notes and explaining what tactics they indicated the debt collector was engaged in.1

See NCLC's Fair Debt Collection 2.4.5, Appx. G.4 (5th Ed. 2004).

Prepared by Final Report Date Plaintiff Plaintiff Attorney Defendant

Michael P. Flannagan Monday November 29, 2004 Consumer, William E & Daughter Larry Attorney, ESQ Collector Financial Services, LLC

Case# 00-C-0000 US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District Determination Upon reviewing the information provided, it is my professional opinion that the defendants DID commit intentional acts of harassment and abuse upon Mr. Consumers daughter and in turn, Mr. Consumer. In addition to the extreme likelihood that statements were made such as: I will make your lives miserable until your Dad is dead or this debt is paid and We are going to take his Social Security and his pension I further feel that additional acts of intentional FDCPA violations have, in fact, occurred.

Additional Violation #1 In accordance with the FDCPA Sec 805(b), 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 post judgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a 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. Upon reading the entire file notes provided, there was never direct contact with Mr. Consumer, neither verbally nor in writing. I see evidence that four (4) separate contacts were made with Mr. Consumers Daughter (her name does not appear in any of the contact notes). The account was entered into Collector Financials system on/about 11/21/03, the first contact occurred 11/26/03 at 9:36a. The note reads: 9:36a CLLD RES SPK TO DTRS DAUGHTER ADVSD HER BIF IS DUE Translation:

Called the residence phone number (system does not indicate which number was called, call was probably made manually rather than an automated dialer system), spoke to the Debtor daughter; the collector (CMH) advised Mr. Consumers daughter the balance in full was due. During each contact, it is clear by the notes that Collector Financial discussed details of Mr. Consumers account with his daughter. The notes never supports nor indicates that Mr. Consumer ever gave Collector Financial permission to discuss his account with his daughter nor anyone other than himself. This privilege cannot be transferred from the original creditor (Capitol One) nor can the privilege be transferred to Mr. Consumers daughter. (She cannot give herself permission to discuss the account). If Mr. Consumer daughter HAD permission to discuss the account, Mr. Consumer would have needed to inform Collector Financial himself, either verbally or in writing and Collector Financial should have noted this in their files. Even if, in fact, Mr. Consumer did allow his daughter to discuss his account with Collector Financial, according to the file notes, Mr. Consumer never allowed Collector Financial to discuss the account with his daughter. If Mr. Consumer did consent to allow Collector Financial to discuss the account with his daughter, there is no record of it in the file notes. Additional Violation #2 In compliance with the FDCPA 805(c) Cease Communications 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, According to the file notes, contact was made on 11/26/03 with Mr. Consumers daughter. In these notes, collector CMH (probably Marlon Hull) noted ACCT RAN BY DTRS EX WIFE and HE ISNT PAYING ANYTHING According to the file notes, contact was made on 12/3/03 with Mr. Consumers daughter. In these notes, collector CWB (probably Wesley Bowen) noted that SENT PAPERS ON WEDSHOWING THAT COURT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THEM ON THIS ACCT According to the file notes, contact was made on 12/4/03 with Mr. Consumers daughter. In these notes, collector DO1 noted that THE COURTS SD THT THY DONT HAVE TO PAT (pay) IT According to the file notes, contact was made on 1/12/04 in the form of a letter from the DTR aka Debtor. This is presumably from Mr. Consumer. However, I was not provided with a copy of the letter. The letter stated, SHOWING ACCT WAS DISMISSED IN OCT 03. According to the file notes, contact was made on 3/13/04 with Mr. Consumers daughter. In these notes collector EKY (probably Elaine Kewklow) noted SHE SAID WE HAVE TOLD YOU PEOPLE THAT MY DAD DOES NOT OWE THIS BILL AND PLEASE DONT CALL

All four phone contacts and the only written contact ALL support the position that Mr. Consumer refused to pay for this debt. FDCPA Sec. 805(c) is clear that since Mr. Consumer directly refused to pay for this debt (regardless of the reasons or excuses), Collector Financial should have ceased communications with the intent to collect a debt. They clearly did not. Additional Violation #3 (Possible) This violation is marked as Possible since insufficient information is currently available to make a definitive decision. According to the file notes, contact was made on 3/13/04 with Mr. Consumers daughter. In these notes collector EKY noted SHE SAID WE HAVE TOLD YOU PEOPLE THAT MY DAD DOES NOT OWE THIS BILL AND PLEASE DONT CALL HERE ANYMORE After reading the file notes, it is clear to me that Mr. Consumers daughter made every reasonable attempt to help her father in this situation and clearly was looking out for his best intentions. Thusly, I find it highly unlikely that she would ask Collector Financial to stop calling her and continue to call and harass her father. It would be more likely that a debtor (or person acting on their behalf) would say DONT CALL ANYMORE rather than saying DONT CALL HERE ANYMORE. This information will need to be obtained from Mr. Consumers Daughter. If Mr. Consumers Daughter, as I believe, actually said to Collector Financial DONT CALL ANYMORE, then since collector EKY noted it, there was an agreed Cease Communication request made on 3/13/04 at 11:33am. That being true than the calls placed; 03/20/04 9:44am 03/30/04 6:54pm 04/06/04 6:53pm 04/13/04 5:47pm 04/21/04 6:57pm would ALL be violations on FDCPA Sec. 805(c). Even though no contact was made, contact was attempted. Final Assessment Upon reading the complaint, the response and most importantly, the file record, I was able to determine the likely mind-set of the collectors and the agency itself. It is my expert opinion that Collector Financial Services and/or its employees did knowing engage in action that was known, or should have been known, to be harassing. I further feel that based on the file notes and my experience as a Collector and Collection Supervisor in 3rd Party Collections, that it is highly probable that the statement mentioned above to Mr. Consumers Daughter were, in fact, said.

The collector (or collectors) handling this account would have likely been affected or frustrated regarding this account since; 1) The balance is reasonably high and thus, commissions would have been higher. The vast majority of 3rd party collectors are paid, in part, on commissions or bonuses based on the total they collect, either individually or as a group. 2) No less than thirty (30) calls were placed with no callbacks. The collector would likely have started to get frustrated at all the attempts, calls, contacts and work spent with no reward. 3) Collector Financial appears to have completely ignored Mr. Consumers Letter of Dispute received on 1/12/04. There is simply one short note line. There was no follow-up nor notes indicating that Collector Financial was concerned about resolving, what Mr. Consumer felt was, a legitimate dispute. They appear to have ignored it completely and continued collections. 4) The contact made on 12/3/03 by collector DO1 stated, SHE WAS JUST GIVING A RUN AROUND. Any good collector would see this and know that normal collections would be ineffective. An experienced collector would likely know that the Daughter was wasting, or attempting to waste, time. This would necessitate more aggressive forms of collections. 5) The above listed Additional Violations that the file notes indicate demonstrates a general lack of concern for following the letter and the spirit of the FDCPA. From the limited information I have, Collector Financial appears to be more focused on collecting a debt above all else rather than by collecting a debt in the proper and legally allowed manner or properly resolving a problem account. In addition, an old collection saying holds, If its not noted, it didnt happen. Basically, if an action or conversation is not noted in the file record, then it did not happen. The entire Dispute that Mr. Consumer had on his account appears to be as follows: - Mr. Consumer was married at some point. - This debt was incurred during some point of his marriage. - Mr. Consumer went through a divorce which appears to be final on or about October 2003 - The Judge in his divorce ruled that the debt was to be paid by his Ex-Wife. All this being accurate, one of the four collectors who had contact with Mr. Consumers daughter should have informed Mr. Consumer that the debt is still valid. Mr. Consumer or his daughter should have been told that if the court order/divorce decree assigned responsibility to his exwife, is a matter to be handled between his ex-wife, the courts who make such a ruling and himself. The divorce decree does not absolve him of this debt. Despite repeated verbal contact and a written response, all of which disputed the debt for this reason, there are no notes on record that Mr. Consumer nor his daughter were ever advised of

this response. This is especially disturbing since this exact situation and the proper response is outlined in Collector's own training/employee manual on page 13. It would appear that Collector Financial and/or its employees either chose to ignore their own manual or simply was never trained on this manual to begin with. The question begs to be asked, If this one simple talk off was repeatedly ignored, what other official company policy was also ignored? Given the general impression and attitude that Collector Financial has given on this account, I do feel it extremely likely that Collector Financial and /or its employees would have felt that standard collection tactics were ineffective and did likely use statements such as: I will make your lives miserable until your Dad is dead or this debt is paid and We are going to take his Social Security and his pension I am willing and able to appear in a legal format such as a deposition or open court to reaffirm these findings.

Respectfully Submitted, Michael P. Flannagan Fair Collection Consulting ACA Certified Collector #8256 / Sept 25,1996