Consumer complaint received 2020-01-21 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Communication tactics — Called before 8am or after 9pm
Company: RentDebt Automated Collections, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I have been subjected to the illegal, immoral, and inept practices of RDAC. I have submitted three complaints about RDAC prior to this. If you would be so kind, please reference my complaint ID numbers XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX for relevant background information. I am making another complaint about RDAC because they refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing and accept responsibility for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The following is RDACs response to of my third complaint : Although RDAC has previously responded to similar allegations in Mr. XXXX latest ( third complaint ), RDAC responds to this latest complaint as follows. First, Mr. XXXX assert that Just because a letter was not returned as undeliverable does not mean that it was delivered to the correct party. By mailing this letter to an address that I have never lived at and failing to ensure my receipt of this document, RDAC neglected to ensure that I received this letter within the mandated 5 days of initial communication per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 809. ( a ). In response to this assertion, RDAC respond by reiterating that the account in question was placed with RDAC for collection on XX/XX/XXXX, and on XX/XX/XXXX, RDAC mailed its initial validation letter to Mr. XXXX at the address that came with the account. That letter was not returned to RDAC as undeliverable, and therefore RDAC was permitted to assume that Mr. XXXX received the validation notice. The plain language of section 1692g ( a ) does not require that a Validation of Debt Notice be received by a debtor. Instead, the plain language states that such a Notice need only be sent to a debtor. XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau of XXXX County, Incorporated, 171 F.3d 1197, 1201 ( 9th Cir. 1999 ). A debt collector need not establish actual receipt by the debtor. Id. Therefore, RDAC denies that it violated 1692g ( a ) of the FDCPA. As for Mr. XXXX concerns regarding RDAC agents attempts to verify that they were communicating with the correct party before discussing the debt with him, this process is for the protection of the consumer ( Mr. XXXX ) in order to ensure that the debt collector does not discuss the consumers debt with an unauthorized third party. Finally, regarding Mr. XXXX allegation that RDAC violated the FDCPA by calling him prior to XXXX XXXX., RDAC has already addressed this allegation in its previous response. Specifically, our previous response regarding this allegation included the following statement : Given that the address provided to RDAC is in the Eastern Time zone, the fact that the initial letter was not returned and the area code of the phone number Mr. XXXX was contacted at ( XXXX ) being is an area code in the Eastern Time zone, it is RDACs position that the call made to Mr. XXXX was made in compliance with section 805 ( a ) ( 1 ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( a ) ( 1 ). That section of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from communicating with a consumer... after XXXX XXXX XXXX and before XXXX XXXX XXXX, local time at the consumers location. RDACs phone system is designed to prevent calls from being dialed to a consumer before XXXX XXXX., or after XXXX XXXX. at the consumers location. At the time the call in question was made, RDAC had no knowledge that Mr. XXXX was located in a time zone other than the Eastern Time Zone. We welcome Mr. XXXX to contact our office at XXXX Monday Thursday from XXXX to XXXX and Friday from XXXX to XXXX Central Time, to discuss options that might be available to him and to assist in resolving his account. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint. XXXX XXXX Mr. XXXX : Can RDAC provide proof that its initial validation letter and response to Mr. XXXX written dispute were sent? Because neither were received by MrXXXX XXXX. RDACs process of verifying a consumers identity via telephone is fundamentally flawed and does not protect consumers. In an age consumed by fraud and identity theft, hundreds of individuals possess the sensitive personal information of others and can use them for harm. To reiterate, just because a caller can verify an individuals social security number, address, and date of birth does not mean that this information belongs to the caller. Also, to reiterate, the address provided to RDAC was not provided by and never has belonged to Mr. XXXX. Assuming a consumers location based on an unverified address, an unreturned letter, and the area code of a telephone number is glaringly inept, irresponsible, and immoral. But using Ms. XXXX logic : Given that the address provided to RDAC is in the Eastern Time zone, the fact that the initial letter was not returned and the area code of the phone number Mr. XXXX was contacted at ( XXXX ) being is an area code in the Eastern Time zone, it is RDACs position that the call made to Mr. XXXX was made in compliance with section 805 ( a ) ( 1 ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( a ) ( 1 ). RDACs phone system is designed to prevent calls from being dialed to a consumer before XXXX XXXX, or after XXXX XXXX at the consumers location, how can XXXX  definitively declare that Mr.  XXXX is not located in the Eastern Time zone? Does RDAC have evidence that Mr. XXXX is not located in the Eastern time zone? Ms. XXXX states that RDAC has every reason to conclude that Mr. XXXX lives in the Eastern Time zone, so it is dangerous to now assume otherwise. Regardless of where RDAC erroneously and carelessly assumes that Mr. XXXX resides, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act forbids debt collectors from calling a consumer before XXXX and after XXXX. The fact of the matter is that RDAC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by calling Mr. XXXX before XXXX. Ms. XXXX statements provide proof of their violations based on their ill-informed assumptions and perhaps even a faulty phone system.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation