On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, against Mirand Response Systems.
Our client alleges that Mirand Response Systems contacted her on her cell phone in order to try and collect a $285 debt. But during the first conversation, the Mirand Response Systems debt collector did not tell her that the phone call was an attempt to collect a debt and that everything she said would be used for that purpose. During the call, our client told Mirand Response Systems that she would contact them as soon as she started her new job and was able to begin making payments. The collector told our client that she was refusing to pay the debt and continued to harass her with as many as three calls a day to her cell phone. Mirand Response Systems called our client at work, and she asked them to call her cell phone after 5:00 p.m. Nevertheless, Mirand Response Systems continued to harass her during work hours. Mirand Response Systems also called our client’s former employer, despite having the proper contact information for her. They also told our client’s former colleague that she had an outstanding account with the creditor. In addition, Mirand Response Systems contacted our client’s daughter, even after they had the proper contact information for our client. In that call, they told her daughter about our client’s alleged debt. In addition, our client never received a five-day notice from Mirand Response Systems.
The lawsuit charges that Mirand Response Systems violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt; by failing to send a validation notice; by contacting third parties for purposes other than to obtain location information; by revealing debt information to third parties; by continuing collection efforts even though the debts had not been verified; by contacting our client at a place and time known to be inconvenient; by contacting our client as her workplace, knowing that her employer prohibited such calls; by failing to inform our client that the phone call was an attempt to collect a debt; and by informing third parties of our client’s debt and stating that our client owed a debt.
The lawsuit also charges that Mirand Response Systems violated the Texas Debt Collection Act and invaded our client’s privacy.