Debt collection calls the debtor’s neighbor on the phone – No presumed circular can justify or excuse such conduct



Unfortunately for about a year I have been dealing with various debt collection companies, this morning at about 8 o’clock, a call center operator of one of these agencies called my neighbor, alleging that she had urgent communications for me but she could not to contact me, so he gave his surname and a fixed telephone number to contact her.

When I was able, I recalled the number, finding out that it was a debt collection company, I asked to speak with the lady who had requested the contact but was not available, I then asked to account to those who answered their behavior, these were the motivations:

1) have tried to contact me, from about 2-3 days, without success to my cell phone, through phone calls and text messages
2) the number of my neighbor is public because it can be traced from the blank pages
3) not having specified the reason for the phone call have in fact respected my privacy
4) acted on the basis of a “circular” in their possession that allows this type of research of the debtor.

Personally, as a matter of principle, if I receive phone calls from a number, especially during working hours, I can not associate with someone, I do not answer and I ignore sms or messages what’s app like “urgently contact the number xxyyz for communications concerning” and I do likewise if these contain generic instructions for payments showing amounts for an outstanding installment plus miscellaneous expenses and how to carry them out.

My reaction was to write a registered letter to the principal, where I asked to be aware of the behavior of the debt collection company and I asked for the future, that the first contact by the recovery company delegated by registered letter A / R in which is specified in detail what is required, that I will not eligible for requests made with text messages, what’s app, etc. and that if you repeat similar situations, I will deny my consent to use the telephone channel to contact me.

I kindly request your opinion from experts, on the behavior of debt collection and on the legitimacy of what I have requested from the financial institution.


In the specific case, the counterparty can not contest the privacy of the debtor if the reason for the call was not specified and if the calling party did not qualify to the neighbor as a credit recovery officer (even if the phone number left could make trace anyone back to the object of the call). Notwithstanding, however, the debtor’s right to require that any communication of the creditor be forwarded by mail to the address communicated at the time of signing the contract, excluding any other channel, and / or that neighbors, relatives and the employer are contacted. work.

It is not possible to avoid the debtor being traced through requests to the registry offices or, more economically, using the blank pages. But no presumed, not better specified, circular (or quadrangular) in the possession of the creditor, can authorize unwanted telephone contacts with the debtor and even less, with relatives, friends acquaintances of the debtor or other third parties.

If between the original financial creditor and the company, in which the employee who has contacted his neighbor is working, a contract is underway, he did well to distrust the principal; otherwise, if the loan was sold, the letter of formal notice from further pursuit of similar conduct should be addressed to the assignee.

His reaction was in accordance with the law and is fully legitimate.




About Author

Leave A Reply