Consumer complaint received 2016-06-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed — Debt is not mine
Company: HOVG, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX Bay Area Credit Service ( BACS ) has robocalled ( XXXX and counting as of end of day XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ) my home for a person whose last name sounds like mine and whose first name sounds like XXXX? ( XXXX? ). These calls are documented in the attached Log and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX files ; the latter contain XXXX of the XXXX calls from XXXX. The XXXX calls after XXXX/XXXX/XXXX can be provided as required. Due to the content of these robocalls I initially believed they were a scam designed to self-incriminate a recipient. After the BACS robocall of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I shut my answering machine through XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and again from XXXX so it 's possible BACS made additional calls during those periods. XXXX have come since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ; on average BACS has called every other day when my answering machine has been on. I am NOT the person sought in these calls. 
Based on mail from other sources which in and of itself was not personally threatening I eventually filed an FTC Identity Theft Victims ' Complaint and Affidavit and used it to file a Report with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which was provided with a copy of the BACS robocalls of XXXX as evidence. I also filed a case with the Postal Inspector. The suspect is a person whose name sounds like the person sought in the BACS calls. 
Prior to the BACS calls and the mail ( which I did not open ) sent in this person 's name to my residence I had no knowledge of any such person. I have never used such a name for any purpose whatsoever and have NEVER given permission to ANYONE to use any of my personal information in association with this or any other name for any purpose whatsoever. Use of my personal information in any way including to incur debt by a third party constitutes Identity Theft. I am NOT responsible for any such debts. The BACS messages ( which are all the same ) state upfront the name of the person sought but not who is calling until the end of the message. They start " This is a very important message for ( name ) '' and go on to say " If this is not the person we have asked for previously in this message please hang-up or disconnect now. There will now be a pause in this message. '' After the pause the message states " BY CONTINUING TO LISTEN TO THIS MESSAGE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU ARE THE PERSON WE ASKED FOR PREVIOUSLY IN THIS MESSAGE. You should not listen to this message so that other people can hear it as it contains personal and private information. There will now be a pause in this message. '' After the second pause BACS identifies itself and states " this is an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector. '' Then the call back number is provided. 
The logic behind these calls is perverse ; they are structured so that " meaningful disclosure '' of who is calling is made in such a way so as to preclude a person who does not owe the debt from contacting BACS without fear of self-incrimination. If the recipient is not the person they have asked for, they should not listen to the message in its entirety. If they do listen, they acknowledge they are that person, even if they are not. So each time such a call is received if the recipient hangs up in real time or erases the message without listening to it in its entirety BACS will keep calling, ostensibly until the recipient just gives up, calls them and " acknowledges ( they ) are the person we asked for previously in this message. '' This is entrapment and along with the frequency of calls is abusive to the person who does not owe the debt and who has a right to know who is repeatedly calling their number. Even if these calls come " just '' every other day on average the cumulative effect is XXXX of harassment. 
There are no instructions provided in the event the recipient of the calls is not the person being sought, whether due to error, identity theft, the phone number was reassigned etc.

Company public response: Company can't verify or dispute the facts in the complaint
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation