Consumer complaint received 2022-05-02
Company: EOS Holdings, Inc.
State: OR
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Communication tactics
Sub-issue: Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language

Complaint:
On or about XX/XX/XXXX, an agent from your firm contacted the consumer in the evening from a spoofed local area code. The spoofed number was ( XXXX ) XXXX and your firms principal location of business is in Massachusetts. The number should not have an Oregon area code ; it may be an 800/collect call area code. The FCC strictly prohibits spoofing the caller ID of any phone call regardless of business or personal use excluding certain state or other public sector entities. The number for your firm as posted on your website is ( XXXX ) XXXX. After a quick search, I am unable to find entity named XXXX registered with the secretary of state for the state of Oregon. Typical scam callers use a technique called neighborhood spoofing where they use a VoIP system that routes the call with a spoofed caller ID of the area where the receiving party resides to increase the chance of the recipient picking up the phone. This is a clear red flag. 
Second, on or about XX/XX/XXXX during the same call, the agent failed to disclose the standard disclaimer that this was collections call as required by the FDCPA. The agent did not give an acceptable response from I raised the point. My instinct kicked in regarding the fact that this may be a scam. I terminated the call and made a return call attempt approximately 1 hour later after calling XXXX. XXXX was able to verify that an account was made for the address but that it was canceled with no past due balance. When I called the spoofed caller ID number, I got an instant connection to an agent and therefore was not warned that the call may be recorded or to select a language and or be given a voice greeting indicating the name of the firm. Most scam call centers instantly connect the collar to an agent instead of going through an IVR or interactive voice response menu tree. So therefore, this raised another red flag. 
The alleged debt is regarding an account for DSL internet service between the consumer and XXXX. In or around 2017, a technician was scheduled to connect service to apartment XXXX in the XXXX XXXX apartment complex. I was at the time a XXXX for XXXX and understand that most ISPs charge a modem rental fee to lease the equipment that connects the customer premise to the network of the ISP. Prior to scheduling an installation for service, I purchased a suitable DSL gateway that was listed on the compatibility list for XXXX. The first service tech was unable to tone the line from the apartment to the telco demarc. I got permission from the property management to run a Cat5e gigabit cable to the telco demarc because the tech was not able to run a wire without permission. A second install tech was dispatched to the same address and was able to tone my line to apartment XXXX but was unable to tone the direct bury line to the street pedestal. As a result, I called to cancel services and called again after receiving a first bill. The XXXX agent said I did not need to worry about any unpaid balance because the service was never hooked up.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation