At approximately XXXX XXXX on Friday, XXXX XXXX 2015, I placed a call to XXXX ( at telephone number XXXX ) in relation to pending litigation. I was instructed that the people available on that line were not able to help me, but that I should call another department within XXXX at telephone number XXXX ( hereinafter the " XXXX number '' ). 

At approximately XXXX XXXX on that same day, I followed the recommendation of the XXXX employee, and placed a telephone call to the XXXX number. When an unnamed representative answered this call, she answered the call as " Phillips & Cohen Associates '' ( hereinafter " PCA '' ). As I had been led to believe that the XXXX number was another office within XXXX, I was confused, and asked for clarification. Specifically, I asked questions to the effect of " Is this an office of XXXX?, '' " Is Phillips & Cohen a subsidiary of XXXX?, '' etc. 

For not less than the first XXXX questions to this effect, the representative told me that yes, I was speaking to someone who was an employee of a subsidiary of XXXX. Based on this information and belief, I then proceeded to divulge personal details - including, but not limited to my name, address, and social security number ( or a portion thereof ). 

After divulging this information, I was informed that the representative was attempting to collect a debt on behalf of " Portfolio Asset Group, '' and that I was not, in fact, speaking with someone who had any connection to XXXX. I was told that PCA is not in any way affiliated with XXXX, even though this directly contradicted the information provided mere seconds earlier by the same representative. I asked whether or not the representative had properly understood my earlier questions - asking things like " do you [ the representative ] understand the definition of the work 'subsidiary '? '' Each time, I was told that the representative had understood my queries, and had proceeded to provide incorrect information anyway. 

I believe that in this conversation, an agent or employee of PCA did violate the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT. Specifically, I believe the following provisions were violated:1. 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ), Paragraph 10 - " The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer ; '' and2. 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ), Paragraph 14 - " The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector 's business, company, or organization. " Further, I believe that each utterance of a knowingly false statement by an agent or employee of PCA does constitute a separate violation. I encourage PCA to review their recording of the infringing conversation and tally the infractions themselves. Under no circumstances do I believe there to have been fewer than XXXX ( total ) violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ). 

Additionally, I believe that in this conversation, an agent or employee of PCA did violate provisions of 209 CMR 18.00 ( " CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF DEBT COLLECTORS AND LOAN SERVICERS '' ), specifically:1. 209 CMR 18.16 ( 10 ) - " The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. " 2. 209 CMR 18.16 ( 14 ) - " The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector 's business, company, or organization. " Again, I believe that each utterance of a knowingly false statement by an agent or employee of PCA does constitute a separate violation. I encourage PCA to review their recording of the infringing conversation and tally the infractions themselves. Under no circumstances do I believe there to have been fewer than XXXX ( total ) violations of 209 CMR 18.16