Quote:
Originally Posted by signupdamnit
You probably did break the law. I don't know about Canada but here in the US that would violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and possibly other such laws. Since Canada tends to be better overall about consumer protection and privacy I would be shocked if that weren't illegal there.
IANAL but you should either get one if you have a lot to lose or not respond to her at all further regarding the matter. Anything you say could end up being used against you. I believe here the fine is something like $2,000 with the possibility of more if they can show actual damages.
|
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act | Federal Trade Commission
The regulations only apply to debt collectors and holders in due course (look that one up F. Lee Baily)
Quote:
(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. **Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 808(6), such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include --
(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;
|
**What that says is that if you tell someone you are a debt collection agency, the Mafia, or whatever, to collect a debt these regulations will apply.
Also, if you are the original creditor, and not an assignee or holder in due course; you are exempted. Owner or Sole Proprietor was omitted -- I would argue that it never was the intention of the regulation -- the word natural person could have been used if that was the intent ...
Futhermore, it is a US Federal rule, and as such: the venue would be in the Federal Courts. The case would be dismissed based on no cause for action -- an individual collecting a debt owed to him, using his own identity, or a pseudonym (nickname at Facebook) would be exempt -- the ony triable issue might be if that name was in fact known to the debtor -- obviously it was
she paid the debt.
Case dismissed
Court adjourned
Maybe Canadian law is different, but to the best of my knowledge, the privacy laws in Canada (and in the EU) are to do with personally identifiable information, employment records, identity papers. 18 U.S.C §2257 disclosures, without court warrant are illegal under Canadian and European Privacy laws, that I know for fact ... ** added : exception being that person's knowing consent to the disclosure.