Thanks for sharing your experience, RBell, and welcome. What do you think of josephusmyer's comment above? Could a lack of notice lead to consumers paying the wrong person?
RBell, thank you for sharing you experience. You mention that these laws are outdated. Could the use of newer technologies such as email and texting improve communications between collectors and consumers? How should a new rule treat these new technologies?
CFPB is not proposing to issue a rule that belongs to state law or is under authority of the state. They plan to conduct consumer testing and other research in developing content or format requirements for any disclosures for time-barred debts they may propose, and for any model forms or clauses for these disclosures they may propose. It may be helpful for them to look at state debt collection laws related to time-barred debt. For more detail, see what CFPB said in the ANPRM on Consumer Testing of Time-Barred Debt Disclosures.
Thanks, RBell. Could you provide more specific information about why prohibiting a collector from reporting information to a CRA during the 30 day window would be a nightmare?
I disagree. Judges at the local level have become too biased in favor of the debt collectors who appear in their courtrooms. Judges live the very definition of insanity in terms of saying and doing the same thing over and over and over, and expecting the same result. That is not what a courtroom should be about. Judges should be allowed to consider the following evidence in a default case...Did the debtor have an excellent payment history, or not and for how long. Has the debtor paid in interest rate charges an amount that was actually more than the amount still owed. If either or both of these scenarios were true, the judge should have latitude to allow the debt to be paid back with no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees tacked on from the time of the default. A judge should also be able to use the FACT that credit card debt suspension insurance is OVER PRICED by a factor of 1000% to 2000% which is possibly the number one reason there has been an amplified amount of credit card defaults, as a reason to deny ongoing interest rate charges, penalties and fees after the default has occurred.Please sign the Debt Neutrality Petition if you agree with the above comment.
I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don't have the money to hire an attorney, so they don't see the point to going to court without an attorney. Why doesn't the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?
Thank you for your comment, Rbell. CFPB is interested in how many debt collection actions are filed against consumers yearly, and whether that number is changing. Do you have any personal insights into this, or any data which might help CFPB gain a better understanding of debt collection actions as they stand?
RBell, CFPB is interested in learning if collectors typically calculate a "reasonable period of time" and does the answer vary depending on particular circumstances? Given your experience, do you have any insight to share? Do you have a suggestion for what would be a reasonable period of time in most cases?
Hi RBell,
While Demand Letters can be ineffective for the purpose of collecting a debt, "notice is the hallmark of fairness." It's more important that people are held to standards, which, in turn, help to eliminate abusive practices. Procedural safeguards, like demand letters, are an important standard regardless of their effectiveness.
That might work if each state had reasonable, intelligent and realistic collection rules. But just the fact that the cost of getting a report varies wildly shows such disparities from state to state. My opinion is that there desperately needs to be some uniformity. This would help people to know what is expected of them, and what to expect.
You are not living in the real world if you think it is just so easy, RBell. No, most consumers are not lawyers. The people using these debt collection practices are deliberately abusing the law because they know most who are harassed and in debt and working people who probably can't afford a lawyer. And I'll just bet it is worst in the states with the least amount of consumer protection.
Take care. You will sing a different tune when it is you on the meat hook.
Moderator
1
Thanks for sharing your experience, RBell, and welcome. What do you think of josephusmyer's comment above? Could a lack of notice lead to consumers paying the wrong person?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
2
RBell, thank you for sharing you experience. You mention that these laws are outdated. Could the use of newer technologies such as email and texting improve communications between collectors and consumers? How should a new rule treat these new technologies?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
3
What do others think about RBell's point that receiving too many notices can be confusing for consumers?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
4
CFPB is not proposing to issue a rule that belongs to state law or is under authority of the state. They plan to conduct consumer testing and other research in developing content or format requirements for any disclosures for time-barred debts they may propose, and for any model forms or clauses for these disclosures they may propose. It may be helpful for them to look at state debt collection laws related to time-barred debt. For more detail, see what CFPB said in the ANPRM on Consumer Testing of Time-Barred Debt Disclosures.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
5
Thanks, RBell. Could you provide more specific information about why prohibiting a collector from reporting information to a CRA during the 30 day window would be a nightmare?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Aaron Racicot
6
The court location should be in the city where the account was opened.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
7
I disagree. Judges at the local level have become too biased in favor of the debt collectors who appear in their courtrooms. Judges live the very definition of insanity in terms of saying and doing the same thing over and over and over, and expecting the same result. That is not what a courtroom should be about. Judges should be allowed to consider the following evidence in a default case...Did the debtor have an excellent payment history, or not and for how long. Has the debtor paid in interest rate charges an amount that was actually more than the amount still owed. If either or both of these scenarios were true, the judge should have latitude to allow the debt to be paid back with no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees tacked on from the time of the default. A judge should also be able to use the FACT that credit card debt suspension insurance is OVER PRICED by a factor of 1000% to 2000% which is possibly the number one reason there has been an amplified amount of credit card defaults, as a reason to deny ongoing interest rate charges, penalties and fees after the default has occurred.Please sign the Debt Neutrality Petition if you agree with the above comment.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
8
I would suggest that debtors who INVOLUNTARILY defaulted on a debt don't have the money to hire an attorney, so they don't see the point to going to court without an attorney. Why doesn't the court give access to free legal counsel to debt defaulters the way they do to those who are accused of committing a crime?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
9
Thank you for your comment, Rbell. CFPB is interested in how many debt collection actions are filed against consumers yearly, and whether that number is changing. Do you have any personal insights into this, or any data which might help CFPB gain a better understanding of debt collection actions as they stand?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
10
RBell, CFPB is interested in learning if collectors typically calculate a "reasonable period of time" and does the answer vary depending on particular circumstances? Given your experience, do you have any insight to share? Do you have a suggestion for what would be a reasonable period of time in most cases?
View this comment in the discussion thread
StevenOren
11Hi RBell, While Demand Letters can be ineffective for the purpose of collecting a debt, "notice is the hallmark of fairness." It's more important that people are held to standards, which, in turn, help to eliminate abusive practices. Procedural safeguards, like demand letters, are an important standard regardless of their effectiveness.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Corrections130
12
Agreed the debt companies usually reply with improper validation and verification which is already in their computer.
View this comment in the discussion thread
gmt512
13
That might work if each state had reasonable, intelligent and realistic collection rules. But just the fact that the cost of getting a report varies wildly shows such disparities from state to state. My opinion is that there desperately needs to be some uniformity. This would help people to know what is expected of them, and what to expect.
View this comment in the discussion thread
gmt512
14
Who do you work for?
View this comment in the discussion thread
gmt512
15
You are not living in the real world if you think it is just so easy, RBell. No, most consumers are not lawyers. The people using these debt collection practices are deliberately abusing the law because they know most who are harassed and in debt and working people who probably can't afford a lawyer. And I'll just bet it is worst in the states with the least amount of consumer protection. Take care. You will sing a different tune when it is you on the meat hook.
View this comment in the discussion thread