I am a family member of a consumer who owes a debt. Collectors constantly call me about this family member. Even after I tell them that I will not get involved in the situation, they continue to call me. Collectors should be required to stop contact with family members with a simple verbal request from the family member.
I have been called by a bill collector and asked for somebody who I had no knowledge of, we'll say "Joe Smith". I say "Joe Smith doesn't live here. In fact, I have never heard of Joe Smith". The caller states: "Well, do you have Joe's current phone number?" I say "I repeat, I don't know a Joe Smith".
The collection agency caller states "I'm sorry I am not allowed to remove this number from our database unless a new number replaces it."
Oh, come on now, seriously?
As a consumer I should receive a notice or some type of warning that the debt will be turned over to a collector. And when there are a change in debt collectors, the consumer should be notified.
Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive; if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor's supervisor. Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee's working hours. If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated. No calls to employers should be allowed as this jeopardizes the debtor's job. How does that help in debt collection? It doesn't.
Debt collectors should not be allowed to alter their caller ID information. They call misrepresenting themselves as "Process Servers" inquiring information about another person's debt. This prevents the consumer from reporting the debt collector for violating consumer protection laws because a false identify was used.
The CFPB should ban workplace calls completely. Consumers provided a home phone number when they take on the debt and that should be the number they call to collect it. Communicating by registered/certified letter should also be the alternate method not workplace calls.
Second Massachusetts limiting the total number of calls is a fabulous idea. We don't throw debtors in prison today yet the ridiculous amount of abuse and scorn they must endure is totally unacceptable. CFPB desperately needs to clean up the debt collection industry.
The entire point of collectors calling debtors at work is to intimidate and cause fear of loss of employment to the debtor and the practice should be outlawed unless the debtor opts in to receive calls there. Its well known that companies like Sallie Mae will continue to call debtors at work even after being told not to.
If a consumer states that he disputes the debt, the debt collector should immediately cease ALL collection activity until the debt is validated. And, by validation, it needs to be more than "the name and social security information matches the creditor's records. The validation process should include a clear and complete copy of ALL DOCUMENTS that create the alleged obligation. If none is available, then the debt should be cancelled. Period.
I would like to see the time frame for validation change. I, as a consumer, have 30 days from the date of the letter to dispute the debt, however, the collection agency can take as long as they want, even years, to get back to the consumer. This practice is not only bad but some charge interest on the debt, even though they don't call it that (fee's???), all the time they are 'looking into it". If I have 30 day's they should have the same time frame to get back to me, period.
Collection Agency's' should be REQUIRED by law to show their phone number when calling a debtor. Most if not all come up "unknown". What are they trying to hide? If they are a legitimate company then they should have no problem showing their number. If I call them, and my number is blocked, I can't get thru until I unblock my number. If they truly are legitimate, they should want to do things fair and above board.
It would be a good idea to create a national database of collectors and assign them an ID number just like the IRS. Require them to state their name and ID number just like IRS employees do. This would allow debtors to easily identify an abusive collector or just call a debt collection agency and ask to speak to a specific employee. If they call and leave a voicemail they are required to state their ID number somewhere in the recording. It would be good for both debtors and collectors.
My daughter has both private and federal loans through Sallie Mae. They call her cell phone and my cell phone daily, at least 10 times a day. They called me, by the way, they do not have her permission to speak with me, and tell me to stop paying her federal loans because they can be deferred and pay the private loans. My daughter owes 176000.00 in private loans and can't afford to make the payments that they are asking for. They called her employer requesting information on her. She sent a letter and requested that they only contact her through email and US mail. When they called me I asked them if they received this and they said yes but they need to be able to talk to someone. Well, they don't have my number as a contact number. I told them and they still call my cell phone daily. My daughter can barely pay the bills she has now. I help her pay her private loans. I am not on any of her loans. This harassment needs to stop!
I think this proposal is completely unfair to the consumer. I am going to give you several scenarios/examples that hopefully convince you that current FCRA regulations have already given collection agencies way too much power over our credit. First, collection agencies are trying (in most cases) to collect on a debt that has already been written off by the creditor. While my state requires that the collection agency must be bonded in Texas, there is very little incentive for collection agencies to play by the rules. They have bought an account for pennies on the dollar. The burden of proof to prove the information contained in the account they purchased. The consumer is instead forced to provide evidence that the debt isn't theirs. How does one do this? How do I prove that the dentist charged me for a procedure I did not request or receive? It is MUCH EASIER for the the debt purchaser to supply the documentation that proves the debt is valid. If their collection is legitimate, their file will contain enough information to prove that the collection is for a specific amount and is unpaid by the consumer in question. They will have cancelled checks in the alleged debtors name, the debtor's signature on the original contract, a payment history from bank accounts in the name of the debtor. They will have x-rays that show Tooth Number XX had a root canal. They will have proof that an inquiry was made on the consumer's credit report on the day the account was open, and they will have an address that was used to send statements, credit cards, communications they initiated.
What does the consumer have? Nothing. It is counterproductive and completely contradictory to suggest a consumer should have a file of information to send to a collection agency proving they didn't open an account or agree to a treatment, considering the consumer did not know the collection even existed until they start receiving phone calls. If a collection agency isn't able to provide the CONSUMER with enough information that proves the account belongs to them, then it is the collection agency's loss, not the consumers. Collection agencies make money collecting money on accounts that have been charged off, meaning the creditor has written it off as a loss. If the collection agency cannot prove with enough evidence to convince a person of average intelligence that an account is correct and that it is the consumer's responsibility to pay the debt, then it should be deleted. There needs to be a "means test" implemented that will outline what criteria must be on file with the collection agency that will prove its validity. This is not simply a name, address and social security number. They must be able to PROVE Consumer A had an account with the original creditor that resulted in a charge off. If they cannot, the collection must be permanently deleted from all consumers credit files. If the law gives the right for a collection agency to purchase a debt for less than the consumer himself would have been allowed to settle with, then the collection agency better keep EXTREMELY accurate filed and enough information to back it up. The consumer shouldn't be required to do anything but demand a copy of the documentation and to initiate the investigation. Nothing else.
My experience is the collection agency will not correct the debt on the credit report! we need a law requiring the collection company to report debt repayment or debt settlement to the credit bureau in a timely manner... Say 30 days after the debt has been settled, or payment arrangements have been made.
It can be very hard to clean up your credit when working with collection companies...
they want their money but they don't care if your credit report is accurate!
Disputes are not investigated. That is a joke. Sending out a letter to whoever these debt collectors think is responsible for the debt is just rote -- it is not done in good faith or follow the letter of the law. They 1) use vague names, no signature, post office boxes, a million aliases for their debt collection business (THAT practice has to stop). The FTC says "reasonable" investigation but these companies do none, and that is the standard practice. A good start is having a realistic and fair and honest laws requiring the companies to verify debt without already having assumptions or worse, not caring if they have the right person or not. Any rule change needs to carry some penalty or it won't have any impact on an industry that has run roughshod over consumers now for two decades. Abuses abound.
There also should be special requirements for validating medical debt because of privacy rights. There seems to be no concern of violating people's privacy when it comes to medical debt collection activities.
Give Consumers Fair Notice and A Chance to Bid on Their Own Debts When Banks Sell Defaulted Obligations to Debt Buyers
When a consumer falls behind on loan or credit card payments, the bank often “sells” the account to a debt buying company for a few pennies on the dollar.
Debt buyers contribute nothing to society. Yet, they are allowed to obtain windfall profits by pursuing impoverished consumers for the full face value of such debts. This is unfair. If a bank is going to sell a consumer’s debt for pennies on the dollar, the bank should be required to notify that consumer, and allow that consumer a fair chance to bid on and purchase his/her own debt, on terms just as favorable as the terms offered to any other debt buyer. I hope the CFPB will consider new rules in this regard.
Please note there is currently a petition on the White House website for this issue at:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-consumers-fair-notice-and-chance-bid-their-own-debts-when-banks-sell-defaulted-obligations-debt/FRMdMMxb
It was initiated here: http://www.californiacollectiondefense.com/please-sign-petition-allow-consumers-buy-debts/
Thank you.
As I have had many accounts in collection due to an identity theft, I have several different experiences with the "validation" process. My belief is that there is no rule defining exactly what documentation constitutes validation. As we know, if we dispute with the CRA and ask for a reinvestigation, all that will be done is the social security number will be matched and verified with the amount owed. It is a useless tool and a waste of the consumer's time. Asking for validation with a collection agency is almost as useless. This is because current laws suggest that the collection agency provide the consumer with information "such as" the name and address of the original creditor, and the amount owed. This does not prove a debt is still owed, and to whom it is owed. If we are going to allow companies to buy debts for amounts as low as pennies on the dollar, then the burden of proof MUST lie with the collection agency. As they are in the business of collecting debts, they are given all information regarding payment history, original contracts, methods of prior payment, and all personal information relating to the consumer. For far too long the consumer has been at the mercy of the collection agency. We are forced to send proof of our identity, current mailing address, phone number, etc. as well as all documentation we have regarding the account that would show an error has been made. But why? The collection agency has this information readily available. And if they do not, the account should be permanently deleted. If the collection agency cannot produce documentation from the original creditor including (1)a contract (2)payment history from original creditor if any (3)proper identification of the consumer (4)proof of purchase of the debt (5)proof they are legally able to collect on the debt in the consumer's state-then there should be laws in place that prevent the debt from being reported. In most cases, it is being reported from the original creditor already. And if it isn't, this should be a red flag to CRA's that the debt is not valid. Collection agencies must be able to show proof that a collection notice was sent, and they should be required to provide the same proof a consumer must provide to prove a dispute was sent (CMRR). If it is required of the consumer, it should be required of all. A debt should be considered validated only when all of these conditions have been met. Without these safeguards, a consumer could end up paying a debt they do not owe. It happens all the time. How many stories have you heard of collection agencies voluntarily providing any information to a consumer before demanding money? They don't. Enough is enough. Take the burden of proof off the consumer and place it with the party that legally owns the debt.
A credit reporting agency should be required to immediately comply with information regarding disputed debt and completely remove any reference to the debt. As an example, I am attempting to have a time barred paid lien removed from my Credit Report. 2 of the 3 bureaus immediately removed, 1 refuses to remove. I have sent documentation from the court, the original creditor, from the office of probate judge all to no avail. Without a remedy, I am left with a false item on my credit report.
Why is there a discrepancy between what you say the statute says - 9am - and what time I find referenced everywhere else - 8am? And what about weekend restrictions? This past weekend I was woken by a call from Midland Debt Collection at 8:10am on a Sunday morning on my cell phone.
Yes. I fell onto hard times during a divorce and found out a few years ago that my dad (whom I haven't lived with for 20+ years) receives so many debt collection calls for me every day he quit answering his home phone. This is unacceptable. We cannot even figure out how they got his phone number because I never lived at that address at any point while I had those credit cards and he never co-signed any loans or credit cards with me. The only connection we can come up with is that my stepmom co-signed a short term furniture loan for me 20 years ago when I was just out of college and that maybe somehow her name is tied to my credit report in some way--although I've never seen it on my credit reports. This is now 6 years after I went through my divorce and he told me a few months ago he still gets several calls per week for me from debt collectors. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor. Clearly, they don't have proof they've got the right number and all they're doing by calling the same unverified number for 6 years is harrassing an innocent party.
I guess I should also have clarified in my previous comment that I have made attempts to deal with creditors directly if I know who they are and who they claim to be representing but my personal perception is they PREFER to continue contacting 3rd parties because they hope I'll just pay them to avoid the public humiliation. And in regards to a comment I read here that creditors can call a 3rd party again if they have a reasonable belief that the person knows how to contact the debtor, I disagree with that entirely. First of all, I'm not aware of any law that compels a 3rd party to provide current contact information for a debtor, so even if they do know where that debtor is, they don't deserve to be harassed daily for months or years as punishment for not offering up that information. Many people don't want to be involved and no law that I know of says they have to if they aren't a party to the debt. Secondly, there is no clear and concise way I know of that a creditor can prove what was a reasonable belief. That this person is a parent of the debtor??? My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law because she wants it that way. They haven't spoken in 3 years and I don't see that changing. You can't assume that certain relatives MUST know where a debtor is.
When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt. Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party, as proper businesses are adverse to bad publicity.
If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.
I agree 100% with this statement. Creditors should not simply be able to pull your credit report at their fancy. I had so many soft pulls (this was before I realized I needed to opt out of marketing) that my credit report from Equifax got "split." Basically, this means that my report got chopped in half and trade lines disappeared. Also, a legitimate creditor attempted to pull my credit and was told by Equifax that I didn't exist. Everything was GONE. After numerous fruitless attempts at reaching someone at Equifax, I finally got a real person. I was informed of the split and told that the burden was on me to provide them with the correct information to "put my report back together." I had to fax them my driver's license, social security card, and a utility bill, all because their software cracked due to too many inquiries that I didn't even authorize. It's still not resolved, and I've filed a report with the CFPB.
linalex61
1
7 phone calls a day from each debtor. from 9am to 10 pm.
View this comment in the discussion thread
linalex61
2
This should really stop. no one can talk at work and should not.
View this comment in the discussion thread
anonymousme
3
I am a family member of a consumer who owes a debt. Collectors constantly call me about this family member. Even after I tell them that I will not get involved in the situation, they continue to call me. Collectors should be required to stop contact with family members with a simple verbal request from the family member.
View this comment in the discussion thread
quino1974
4
Something must be done were criminal charges can be pursued if a collection agency continues to harass through phone calls and emails.
View this comment in the discussion thread
TaxGuy
5
I have been called by a bill collector and asked for somebody who I had no knowledge of, we'll say "Joe Smith". I say "Joe Smith doesn't live here. In fact, I have never heard of Joe Smith". The caller states: "Well, do you have Joe's current phone number?" I say "I repeat, I don't know a Joe Smith". The collection agency caller states "I'm sorry I am not allowed to remove this number from our database unless a new number replaces it." Oh, come on now, seriously?
View this comment in the discussion thread
R N
6
I think calls at work should be allowed .
View this comment in the discussion thread
SJDuPlessis
7
As a consumer I should receive a notice or some type of warning that the debt will be turned over to a collector. And when there are a change in debt collectors, the consumer should be notified.
View this comment in the discussion thread
bonzarel
8
Calling a debtor at work is counter-intuitive; if collectors are continuously calling someone at work, other employees may report it to the debtor's supervisor. Most companies have established rules about receiving or making personal calls from company or cell phones during an employee's working hours. If a collector or creditor calls a debtor on his/her cell phone and is informed that the debtor is at work, the call should be terminated. No calls to employers should be allowed as this jeopardizes the debtor's job. How does that help in debt collection? It doesn't.
View this comment in the discussion thread
jcolesrn
9
Debt collectors should not be allowed to alter their caller ID information. They call misrepresenting themselves as "Process Servers" inquiring information about another person's debt. This prevents the consumer from reporting the debt collector for violating consumer protection laws because a false identify was used.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Cindy L.
10
The CFPB should ban workplace calls completely. Consumers provided a home phone number when they take on the debt and that should be the number they call to collect it. Communicating by registered/certified letter should also be the alternate method not workplace calls. Second Massachusetts limiting the total number of calls is a fabulous idea. We don't throw debtors in prison today yet the ridiculous amount of abuse and scorn they must endure is totally unacceptable. CFPB desperately needs to clean up the debt collection industry.
View this comment in the discussion thread
grabershane
11
Calling someone's work is clearly and without dispute intended to embarrass and annoy. It is never acceptable.
View this comment in the discussion thread
brendandavis
12
The entire point of collectors calling debtors at work is to intimidate and cause fear of loss of employment to the debtor and the practice should be outlawed unless the debtor opts in to receive calls there. Its well known that companies like Sallie Mae will continue to call debtors at work even after being told not to.
View this comment in the discussion thread
jfearon
13
They should not be allowed to call people at work or on their cell phones.
View this comment in the discussion thread
tommc4
14
If a consumer states that he disputes the debt, the debt collector should immediately cease ALL collection activity until the debt is validated. And, by validation, it needs to be more than "the name and social security information matches the creditor's records. The validation process should include a clear and complete copy of ALL DOCUMENTS that create the alleged obligation. If none is available, then the debt should be cancelled. Period.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Evil Empire 58
15
I would like to see the time frame for validation change. I, as a consumer, have 30 days from the date of the letter to dispute the debt, however, the collection agency can take as long as they want, even years, to get back to the consumer. This practice is not only bad but some charge interest on the debt, even though they don't call it that (fee's???), all the time they are 'looking into it". If I have 30 day's they should have the same time frame to get back to me, period.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Evil Empire 58
16
Collection Agency's' should be REQUIRED by law to show their phone number when calling a debtor. Most if not all come up "unknown". What are they trying to hide? If they are a legitimate company then they should have no problem showing their number. If I call them, and my number is blocked, I can't get thru until I unblock my number. If they truly are legitimate, they should want to do things fair and above board.
View this comment in the discussion thread
brendandavis
17
It would be a good idea to create a national database of collectors and assign them an ID number just like the IRS. Require them to state their name and ID number just like IRS employees do. This would allow debtors to easily identify an abusive collector or just call a debt collection agency and ask to speak to a specific employee. If they call and leave a voicemail they are required to state their ID number somewhere in the recording. It would be good for both debtors and collectors.
View this comment in the discussion thread
lori9759
18
My daughter has both private and federal loans through Sallie Mae. They call her cell phone and my cell phone daily, at least 10 times a day. They called me, by the way, they do not have her permission to speak with me, and tell me to stop paying her federal loans because they can be deferred and pay the private loans. My daughter owes 176000.00 in private loans and can't afford to make the payments that they are asking for. They called her employer requesting information on her. She sent a letter and requested that they only contact her through email and US mail. When they called me I asked them if they received this and they said yes but they need to be able to talk to someone. Well, they don't have my number as a contact number. I told them and they still call my cell phone daily. My daughter can barely pay the bills she has now. I help her pay her private loans. I am not on any of her loans. This harassment needs to stop!
View this comment in the discussion thread
erinintexas
19
I think this proposal is completely unfair to the consumer. I am going to give you several scenarios/examples that hopefully convince you that current FCRA regulations have already given collection agencies way too much power over our credit. First, collection agencies are trying (in most cases) to collect on a debt that has already been written off by the creditor. While my state requires that the collection agency must be bonded in Texas, there is very little incentive for collection agencies to play by the rules. They have bought an account for pennies on the dollar. The burden of proof to prove the information contained in the account they purchased. The consumer is instead forced to provide evidence that the debt isn't theirs. How does one do this? How do I prove that the dentist charged me for a procedure I did not request or receive? It is MUCH EASIER for the the debt purchaser to supply the documentation that proves the debt is valid. If their collection is legitimate, their file will contain enough information to prove that the collection is for a specific amount and is unpaid by the consumer in question. They will have cancelled checks in the alleged debtors name, the debtor's signature on the original contract, a payment history from bank accounts in the name of the debtor. They will have x-rays that show Tooth Number XX had a root canal. They will have proof that an inquiry was made on the consumer's credit report on the day the account was open, and they will have an address that was used to send statements, credit cards, communications they initiated. What does the consumer have? Nothing. It is counterproductive and completely contradictory to suggest a consumer should have a file of information to send to a collection agency proving they didn't open an account or agree to a treatment, considering the consumer did not know the collection even existed until they start receiving phone calls. If a collection agency isn't able to provide the CONSUMER with enough information that proves the account belongs to them, then it is the collection agency's loss, not the consumers. Collection agencies make money collecting money on accounts that have been charged off, meaning the creditor has written it off as a loss. If the collection agency cannot prove with enough evidence to convince a person of average intelligence that an account is correct and that it is the consumer's responsibility to pay the debt, then it should be deleted. There needs to be a "means test" implemented that will outline what criteria must be on file with the collection agency that will prove its validity. This is not simply a name, address and social security number. They must be able to PROVE Consumer A had an account with the original creditor that resulted in a charge off. If they cannot, the collection must be permanently deleted from all consumers credit files. If the law gives the right for a collection agency to purchase a debt for less than the consumer himself would have been allowed to settle with, then the collection agency better keep EXTREMELY accurate filed and enough information to back it up. The consumer shouldn't be required to do anything but demand a copy of the documentation and to initiate the investigation. Nothing else.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Vglass
20
My experience is the collection agency will not correct the debt on the credit report! we need a law requiring the collection company to report debt repayment or debt settlement to the credit bureau in a timely manner... Say 30 days after the debt has been settled, or payment arrangements have been made. It can be very hard to clean up your credit when working with collection companies... they want their money but they don't care if your credit report is accurate!
View this comment in the discussion thread
gmt512
21
Disputes are not investigated. That is a joke. Sending out a letter to whoever these debt collectors think is responsible for the debt is just rote -- it is not done in good faith or follow the letter of the law. They 1) use vague names, no signature, post office boxes, a million aliases for their debt collection business (THAT practice has to stop). The FTC says "reasonable" investigation but these companies do none, and that is the standard practice. A good start is having a realistic and fair and honest laws requiring the companies to verify debt without already having assumptions or worse, not caring if they have the right person or not. Any rule change needs to carry some penalty or it won't have any impact on an industry that has run roughshod over consumers now for two decades. Abuses abound. There also should be special requirements for validating medical debt because of privacy rights. There seems to be no concern of violating people's privacy when it comes to medical debt collection activities.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Determined1
22
Give Consumers Fair Notice and A Chance to Bid on Their Own Debts When Banks Sell Defaulted Obligations to Debt Buyers When a consumer falls behind on loan or credit card payments, the bank often “sells” the account to a debt buying company for a few pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers contribute nothing to society. Yet, they are allowed to obtain windfall profits by pursuing impoverished consumers for the full face value of such debts. This is unfair. If a bank is going to sell a consumer’s debt for pennies on the dollar, the bank should be required to notify that consumer, and allow that consumer a fair chance to bid on and purchase his/her own debt, on terms just as favorable as the terms offered to any other debt buyer. I hope the CFPB will consider new rules in this regard. Please note there is currently a petition on the White House website for this issue at: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-consumers-fair-notice-and-chance-bid-their-own-debts-when-banks-sell-defaulted-obligations-debt/FRMdMMxb It was initiated here: http://www.californiacollectiondefense.com/please-sign-petition-allow-consumers-buy-debts/ Thank you.
View this comment in the discussion thread
erinintexas
23
As I have had many accounts in collection due to an identity theft, I have several different experiences with the "validation" process. My belief is that there is no rule defining exactly what documentation constitutes validation. As we know, if we dispute with the CRA and ask for a reinvestigation, all that will be done is the social security number will be matched and verified with the amount owed. It is a useless tool and a waste of the consumer's time. Asking for validation with a collection agency is almost as useless. This is because current laws suggest that the collection agency provide the consumer with information "such as" the name and address of the original creditor, and the amount owed. This does not prove a debt is still owed, and to whom it is owed. If we are going to allow companies to buy debts for amounts as low as pennies on the dollar, then the burden of proof MUST lie with the collection agency. As they are in the business of collecting debts, they are given all information regarding payment history, original contracts, methods of prior payment, and all personal information relating to the consumer. For far too long the consumer has been at the mercy of the collection agency. We are forced to send proof of our identity, current mailing address, phone number, etc. as well as all documentation we have regarding the account that would show an error has been made. But why? The collection agency has this information readily available. And if they do not, the account should be permanently deleted. If the collection agency cannot produce documentation from the original creditor including (1)a contract (2)payment history from original creditor if any (3)proper identification of the consumer (4)proof of purchase of the debt (5)proof they are legally able to collect on the debt in the consumer's state-then there should be laws in place that prevent the debt from being reported. In most cases, it is being reported from the original creditor already. And if it isn't, this should be a red flag to CRA's that the debt is not valid. Collection agencies must be able to show proof that a collection notice was sent, and they should be required to provide the same proof a consumer must provide to prove a dispute was sent (CMRR). If it is required of the consumer, it should be required of all. A debt should be considered validated only when all of these conditions have been met. Without these safeguards, a consumer could end up paying a debt they do not owe. It happens all the time. How many stories have you heard of collection agencies voluntarily providing any information to a consumer before demanding money? They don't. Enough is enough. Take the burden of proof off the consumer and place it with the party that legally owns the debt.
View this comment in the discussion thread
coterotie
24
A credit reporting agency should be required to immediately comply with information regarding disputed debt and completely remove any reference to the debt. As an example, I am attempting to have a time barred paid lien removed from my Credit Report. 2 of the 3 bureaus immediately removed, 1 refuses to remove. I have sent documentation from the court, the original creditor, from the office of probate judge all to no avail. Without a remedy, I am left with a false item on my credit report.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Hoosier
25
Why is there a discrepancy between what you say the statute says - 9am - and what time I find referenced everywhere else - 8am? And what about weekend restrictions? This past weekend I was woken by a call from Midland Debt Collection at 8:10am on a Sunday morning on my cell phone.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Dazed and Abused
26
Yes. I fell onto hard times during a divorce and found out a few years ago that my dad (whom I haven't lived with for 20+ years) receives so many debt collection calls for me every day he quit answering his home phone. This is unacceptable. We cannot even figure out how they got his phone number because I never lived at that address at any point while I had those credit cards and he never co-signed any loans or credit cards with me. The only connection we can come up with is that my stepmom co-signed a short term furniture loan for me 20 years ago when I was just out of college and that maybe somehow her name is tied to my credit report in some way--although I've never seen it on my credit reports. This is now 6 years after I went through my divorce and he told me a few months ago he still gets several calls per week for me from debt collectors. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to call ANY number for more than 3 months without successful contact with the debtor. Clearly, they don't have proof they've got the right number and all they're doing by calling the same unverified number for 6 years is harrassing an innocent party.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Dazed and Abused
27
I guess I should also have clarified in my previous comment that I have made attempts to deal with creditors directly if I know who they are and who they claim to be representing but my personal perception is they PREFER to continue contacting 3rd parties because they hope I'll just pay them to avoid the public humiliation. And in regards to a comment I read here that creditors can call a 3rd party again if they have a reasonable belief that the person knows how to contact the debtor, I disagree with that entirely. First of all, I'm not aware of any law that compels a 3rd party to provide current contact information for a debtor, so even if they do know where that debtor is, they don't deserve to be harassed daily for months or years as punishment for not offering up that information. Many people don't want to be involved and no law that I know of says they have to if they aren't a party to the debt. Secondly, there is no clear and concise way I know of that a creditor can prove what was a reasonable belief. That this person is a parent of the debtor??? My in-laws have no idea how to reach my sister-in-law because she wants it that way. They haven't spoken in 3 years and I don't see that changing. You can't assume that certain relatives MUST know where a debtor is.
View this comment in the discussion thread
benitus
28
When anyone makes a demand for payment from another party, it is incumbent on that person to produce the evidence to support such demand and not up to the second party to produce evidence that he is not liable for such alleged debt. Otherwise, anyone can create trouble and misery for any person out of mischief, ill-intent or out to make some fast money for himself or even to defame the second party, as proper businesses are adverse to bad publicity. If the first party claims to represent a third party to collect debt for that third party, then the first party (collector) must produce evidence that he is authorized by the third party to collect a debt for the third party alone because anyone can claim to represent any party in an attempt to defraud the innocent second party.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Esok
29
I agree 100% with this statement. Creditors should not simply be able to pull your credit report at their fancy. I had so many soft pulls (this was before I realized I needed to opt out of marketing) that my credit report from Equifax got "split." Basically, this means that my report got chopped in half and trade lines disappeared. Also, a legitimate creditor attempted to pull my credit and was told by Equifax that I didn't exist. Everything was GONE. After numerous fruitless attempts at reaching someone at Equifax, I finally got a real person. I was informed of the split and told that the burden was on me to provide them with the correct information to "put my report back together." I had to fax them my driver's license, social security card, and a utility bill, all because their software cracked due to too many inquiries that I didn't even authorize. It's still not resolved, and I've filed a report with the CFPB.
View this comment in the discussion thread