916-478-6734

Actually, once the debt collector has called, they are required by law to mail that initial dunning letter.  If they won't do that, then it's a safe bet they aren't legitimate, or they actually do NOT have the legal right to collect the alleged debt!

I have no problem with answering a call from a debt collector or with calling them back.  Know why?  Because I will not be the one getting sued.  But even if I did not answer the call, and they tried to sue me, I would prevail in the end, because I would be suing them for FDCPA violations.

A DEBT COLLECTOR DOESNT HAVE TO MAIL YOU ANYTHING UNTIL THEY VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY OVER THE PHONE. Continue to evade calls and you will get sued. AND NO YOU WILL NOT GET A LETTER BY NOT PICKING UP YOUR PHONE. GET EDUCATED

That’s necessarily true at all and here is why. My next door neighbor went into foreclosure and as a result I am getting calls from a debt collector looking for him.

You should follow your own advice about getting educated.  The law states the following:  Federal law (FDCPA) requires them to send you a letter (US MAIL ONLY) postmarked within 5 days of their first contact that contains their name, physical address, the creditor’s name, and the amount of the alleged debt. It also must contains “mini-Miranda” telling you that it is an attempt to collect a debt and that all information will be used for those purposes.  The one other important thing that this letter must also have in it is that you have a right to dispute the debt within 30 days of receipt of the letter and if you do so, all collection activity must be stopped until the debt is verified.  15 USC 1692g.

By not picking up your phone, you will not be able to assert your rights, however that will not necessarily result in your getting sued.  Go troll somewhere else, you know like one of the several debt collection sites that cater to these crooks, because they certainly don't know the law and you can get away with that garbage you just posted.

Prove it. Cite the law. BigA did, can you?

Bravo, it only took you goofs nine years to determine that you need to bring more than the same tired collector clichés to a duel on this website. I'll hand you a point for a creatively foggy reading of your §1692g responsibilities. Seems to me it would permit you to conduct endless fishing expeditions by phone and never incur expenses from your letter vendor so long as no called party positively identifies, or (as is often the case for your breed) you simply decide that called parties are lying.

You do have a letter vendor, don't you? Just checking, since it's rather suspect to jump to the part where you sue to collect without a paper trail showing that you first tried a non-judicial remedy.

Anyway, your industry regulators tend to get fixated on the concept of "reasonable basis", which is to say you should have one for jangling someone's phone all week and making threats which you actually intend to fulfill. The FTC and CFPB would very much prefer that you avoid repeated hassling of the "WRONG" persons merely because the homework bores you.

Your previous theory of phone call avoidance as a lawsuit trigger is yet more risible. I again faintly applaud the inventive attempt to build urgency for your "all bark" phone calls. BigA took the same posture I have, that you may not enjoy being taken where those calls drive a person with a backbone.

You just proved me correct.... and you still argue.. nice...Federal law (FDCPA) requires them to send you a letter (US MAIL ONLY) postmarked within 5 days of their first contact that contains their name, physical address, the creditor’s name, and the amount of the alleged debt.
AFTER..... AFTER!!!!!! and yes by not answering your phone calls a debt collection agency can just sue you... its a courtesy to get those phone calls. some places will only call once and if you don't answer they will serve you.

The FDCPA and case law tell us that statutory "communication" may be direct or indirect. The term is meant to be, and is, interpreted broadly. A debt collector may "communicate" something relevant to the task of collection without gaining a response or even providing an identity.

The content and form of "initial communication" are not specified in §1692g. There is an implied presumption that the initial contact will not contain all of the disclosures about a person's dispute rights. Quite frequently the initial contact is a curt request to return a phone call without explanation. That is enough to satisfy "communication" since the purpose of that request generally becomes clear soon enough as (typically) the agency continues to rain down phone calls for a few days. The FDCPA demands the prompt issuance of those pesky disclosures in written form so that alleged debtors have a fair chance to make an informed financial decision, and need not dump their money on some unverified debt problem as a ransom to make the demanding calls and letters stop.

If Congress had intended for a collection agency to verify an alleged debtor by phone before the "G-letter" requirement is triggered, the statute would have such language. It does not, and with good reason. To extrapolate from our angry shill's legal theory, his company could shower a person with "peekaboo" abandoned phone calls and/or "call back" messages for weeks and months and never get around to formally introducing itself on paper. It could do so with the intent to confuse, annoy, or oppress, and distress would be the natural result even if unintended, thus begging for a spanking for many FDCPA violations. This too could hardly be the intent of the Act's authors and would never be supported by the FTC.

} its a courtesy to get those phone calls.
No, it's a courtesy to the collector if I answer them. The alleged debtor is not required to adopt the phone as the primary or sole means of communication. The debt collector is highly motivated to use the phone as a weapon, hence the FDCPA provisions which allow targeted persons to pinch off that noise.

} some places will only call once and if you don't answer they will serve you.
"Some places" will face serious challenge from me regarding due process if they try that stunt. One more time, it's wrong to coerce alleged debtors into use of the phone. Meantime, "some places" would be forced to pack in those §1692g disclosures with the civil complaint, creating needless confusion in the defendant, who then has two competing deadlines to consider, the FDCPA's thirty day dispute window and the court's date for serving an Answer. A judge with half a brain will consider that choice unfair and throttle proceedings.

First contact with the correct party. Not just first contact without the person over the phone not verifying themselves.

Hahaha good one. They are extremely rude and like to get loud on the phone.