Welcome to Regulation Room Joules, and thank you for joining the discussion. Can you tell us more about how, specifically, CFPB should address this loophole?
Thank you for sharing your story, JOULES. CFPB is considering rules to make sure that debt collectors and buyers have more information about the debt (such as who the borrower is). Do you think that giving more information about the debt to the attorneys' office could have helped in your case? You can read more about that proposal and comment on it, here.
Moderator, I do not believe that it would have mattered. It seemed that the Attorney/debt collector was not looking for the actual debtor - I believe that all that they were trying to do was to make a quick buck. They did a couple of shady things with this case.
For a solution; the laws should be written so the common lay person can understand. If I had known that a validation request would not be considered I would not have wasted my time and paid even though it was NOT my debt.
Please note - I am NOT an attorney.
You may want to see an attorney specializing in FDCPA cases and take that collector to court. Federal law might be in your favor with all the validation requests ignored.
I have already spoken with an attorney. This is how I found out about the separation of state and federal law. Because I was sued in state civil court is why my validation requests were ignored by the plaintiffs as well as the seating judge. What I should have done (in state court) was sent a 'discovery' request AFTER the case had been filed rather then a validation request. Please note - the 'collection agency' was a large legal firm. They knew the laws well and whereas I was a lay person and not versed in law , I was like a sitting duck just waiting for the slaughter. If I did take them to court I would receive hundreds but it would cost me thousands....and I just do not have that type of money.
What really touched my heart was sitting in that court room and seeing others that also thought that the law would be fair if they represented themselves. Needless to say, we all lost and lost big time. I asked the judge why would he allow this when the plaintiff was a unlicensed collection agency and he stated ' they look like attorneys to me'.
I knew that at that point I had lost my case.
In Michigan a company had its Collection Agency Revoked due to unethical practices 2008. But this did not stop them. Now they practice as attorneys and continue the unethical practices. Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.
This is the PROBLEM over and over Joules thank you so much for stating it.
Why should lawyers get a pass from rules of the Bar Associations or rules of the court because they are now considered "debt collectors" -- even I did not know this, though I have seen advertised quite a bit lawyers in the "collection" business. This is wrong. I hope if anything, this very thing is addressed. Using a lawyer to send a letter is often a way to intimidate. People become too frightened to even respond. The rules are blown off by lawyers who go into this debt collection business because they make a fast easy buck, and they know the debtor has very little recourse, and there is so few rules that protect the consumer/debtor. Being in debt stopped being a crime decades ago, but the lack of rules that protect the debtor are bringing back these draconian practices. Uniformity, is needed, and making lawyers abide by the rules of the Bar. Just two right off. Thank you for doing this. It is bringing to light why this system has become so fraught with abuse.
Moderator
1
Welcome to Regulation Room Joules, and thank you for joining the discussion. Can you tell us more about how, specifically, CFPB should address this loophole?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
2
Thank you for sharing your story, JOULES. CFPB is considering rules to make sure that debt collectors and buyers have more information about the debt (such as who the borrower is). Do you think that giving more information about the debt to the attorneys' office could have helped in your case? You can read more about that proposal and comment on it, here.
View this comment in the discussion thread
rb
3
In CA they are and they should be federally too.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JOULES
4
Moderator, I do not believe that it would have mattered. It seemed that the Attorney/debt collector was not looking for the actual debtor - I believe that all that they were trying to do was to make a quick buck. They did a couple of shady things with this case. For a solution; the laws should be written so the common lay person can understand. If I had known that a validation request would not be considered I would not have wasted my time and paid even though it was NOT my debt. Please note - I am NOT an attorney.
View this comment in the discussion thread
CG
5
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should cover that attorney as is.
View this comment in the discussion thread
CG
6
You may want to see an attorney specializing in FDCPA cases and take that collector to court. Federal law might be in your favor with all the validation requests ignored.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JOULES
7
I have already spoken with an attorney. This is how I found out about the separation of state and federal law. Because I was sued in state civil court is why my validation requests were ignored by the plaintiffs as well as the seating judge. What I should have done (in state court) was sent a 'discovery' request AFTER the case had been filed rather then a validation request. Please note - the 'collection agency' was a large legal firm. They knew the laws well and whereas I was a lay person and not versed in law , I was like a sitting duck just waiting for the slaughter. If I did take them to court I would receive hundreds but it would cost me thousands....and I just do not have that type of money. What really touched my heart was sitting in that court room and seeing others that also thought that the law would be fair if they represented themselves. Needless to say, we all lost and lost big time. I asked the judge why would he allow this when the plaintiff was a unlicensed collection agency and he stated ' they look like attorneys to me'. I knew that at that point I had lost my case.
View this comment in the discussion thread
CCC3
8
In Michigan a company had its Collection Agency Revoked due to unethical practices 2008. But this did not stop them. Now they practice as attorneys and continue the unethical practices. Yes states must figure out how to close this loophole.
View this comment in the discussion thread
gmt512
9
This is the PROBLEM over and over Joules thank you so much for stating it. Why should lawyers get a pass from rules of the Bar Associations or rules of the court because they are now considered "debt collectors" -- even I did not know this, though I have seen advertised quite a bit lawyers in the "collection" business. This is wrong. I hope if anything, this very thing is addressed. Using a lawyer to send a letter is often a way to intimidate. People become too frightened to even respond. The rules are blown off by lawyers who go into this debt collection business because they make a fast easy buck, and they know the debtor has very little recourse, and there is so few rules that protect the consumer/debtor. Being in debt stopped being a crime decades ago, but the lack of rules that protect the debtor are bringing back these draconian practices. Uniformity, is needed, and making lawyers abide by the rules of the Bar. Just two right off. Thank you for doing this. It is bringing to light why this system has become so fraught with abuse.
View this comment in the discussion thread