Check your state law, such as Illinois has its own Collection Agency Act. It's a licensed profession and Atty general for the state would be a start for a complaint. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1355&ChapterID=24
stopwithspoofcallerID, the purpose of Regulation Room is to provide an environment where people can learn about important agency proposals and discuss them in ways that help the agency make a better decision. Everyone who comments on the site is expected to remain civil and respectful. We welcome you to continue commenting on CFPB’s questions and ideas about debt collection practices.
When two parties engage in a lawsuit, each side presents the evidence they have supporting their assertions. As a collector, I provide proof of the debt - invoices, letters to the customer or other communication with them to resolve the problem, signed applications, etc. The debtor is also expected to present some proof that the debt is not theirs. Yes, the assumption is innocent until proven guilty but you have to provide evidence to support your claim of innocence. If I offer a signed document that says you agreed to the purchase and documentation that supports that you did not pay, I have fulfilled my side of the burden of proof. The debtor also bears a burden of proof in our system. That's what the judge is for - to hear both sides, weigh the evidence, and make a fair decision based on the evidence and arguments presented.
There's no need to be rude about it. There are some debt collection practices that should obviously be illegal. Other things that people are discussing here are obviously matters of convenience. To the extent that preferences are widely shared and outright prohibition wouldn't increase lending costs across the board beyond a marginal amount, outright prohibition makes sense. But if someone wants the ability to stop someone from conducting any and all robocalls from all phones, and robocalls help creditors recoup their loans, then the creditor should be able to charge a regulated fee for that convenience. I'm not saying that the debt collection agency itself would charge the fee (although my late-night post stated otherwise). Just that a consent-based approach is another option.
Hi stopwithspoofedcallerID, thanks for your comment. It sounds like you do not like the idea of allowing collectors to leave messages asking consumers to go to a mini-Miranda warning website because it opens the door for spammers/hackers to do similar things. Couldn't hackers and spammers do this without the rule? Does the rule make this more likely somehow?
That is an interesting suggestion, stopwithspoofedcallerID, thanks. How would a collector know (or when should it know) that the consumer is at a place in a state of emergency? How far away from the attack does the dangerous/hostile environment reach?
Thank you for your comment, stopwithspoofedcallerID. Do you have a link to any of the state laws that you’ve mentioned? This would make it easier for other commenters to discuss your ideas. Since CPFB is in the fact-finding stage of the rulemaking process, any specific information that you have about the payment fees is beneficial. Do you have any personal experiences with how much the fees are or how often debt collectors charge them?
Hi stopwithspoofcallerID, It seems that your main concern, when a message is left, is to prevent collectors from being able to block or spoof their called ID when contacting consumers. Are you also concerned with whether collectors should identify themselves in the actual message or does that create certain privacy issues customers may be concerned about?
First, there may be a requirement to notify the creditor of changes, but many consumers don't, and second a consumer has to complete an NCOA for the post office to have record of it. Many don't. If there is a requirement that a creditor is to provide notice of a sale of the debt, pending sale, or sending the account off to collection, there shouldn't be liability on the creditor if they lack the updated information to actually reach the consumer. I don't want to see any FDCPA strict liability requirement that this notice must be given, but because the consumer has moved and failed to update the creditor and notice is not received, the creditor or debt collector is then stuck defending a lawsuit. If the creditor does not receive notice of an updated address, don't have strict liability that any notice reach the consumer.
You are correct. There is quite a difference between send and receive. All I am suggesting is that a creditor only be required to send any notice to the last known address - not that the consumer receive it. If it is returned with a new address (and you presume too much if you think that all mail is returned if not delivered to the proper recipeint), then the creditor must send the notice to that new address. If the point of this dialogue is to ensure the consumer is protected, then require the consumer to protect themselves and provide this information to the creditor. If they don't then a creditor can't be hanged in a lawsuit for a letter failing to reach a consumer, when the creditor actions used the best information on hand.
Mr. Dan,
I bet YOU never had your phone number programmed into a robo-dialer? I can assure you that it's lots of fun.
Costs too much to do manual dialing? Too bad.
To the Moderator,
I do not think that answering 97% of the calls from an automated dialer within two seconds is a solution to my problem.
I would like for Mr. Dan to explain exactly what the safeguards of using a robo dialer are.
From my perspective as a frequent recipient of robo calls from debt collectors, the problem is a lack of ownership and impersonality of the collection agency when the debt is not assigned to one collector to handle.
Years ago when a collector would call me, it would always be the same person. Now it is not.
Assign the debt to one collector who would then take full responsibility for making all contacts with the alleged debtor. This could even include acquisition of location information.
There are requirements for validating a debt to the customer set in the FDCPA. There are investigation requirements in other aspects of federal law when a consumer disputes. A debt cannot simply be created out of thin air. Agencies who engage in this sort of practice are usually stopped relatively quickly and fined quite heavily (as well as subjected to cease and desist and regulatory action). The fact is, while a debt collector is required to maintain certain pieces of information and validate certain pieces of information, the consumer is not required to do anything further than say, "I don't owe this" to make collections stop for a period of time. Just like for debt collectors, the few that do it wrong ruin if for the many that do it right, consumers in my opinion should be required to furnish some sort of support of dispute.
Preserving the industry DOES protect consumers. If there isn't a lawful and enforceable way of collecting money that is owed, then future consumers will pay the price in increased cost for credit, or denial of credit entirely due to risk.
If consumers can receive phone calls on Sundays, there's no reason for them to not accept emails. Controlling which messages you get and how they are routed and presented to you, including what alerts or sounds they make when received, is only possible with email. Email is far superior to any other communication medium.
Just to add to my comment: These so-called "Blue Laws" that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such "blue laws" and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits. The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.
The problem is not with a form letter of dispute. The problem is that these websites and unreasonable letters lead unsophisticated debtors to believe that a creditor has to provide extraordinary proof that simply is not required.
'stopwithspoofedcallerID' (if that IS your real name) is correct that no legitimate dispute should be ignored, regardless of the form, but nor should debtors be allowed to abuse the system by repeatedly asking for proofs that are not required.
There is no need for these so-called examiners but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who're unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty. We cannot allow expediency to deny us such fundamental rights.
I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence, so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators. The principle behind any rules promulgated by the CFPB must ensure that no alleged debtor get bullied into paying up or blind-sided by the court into doing so. Sometimes, there are reasons why the outstanding bills are not paid and the consumer should be allowed to confront the creditor to resolve any complaints by the consumer before the bills are paid.
It's a very straight-forward and simple situation actually. All the CFB needs to do is to enact basic regulations that protects the consumer and stipulates very clearly that the burden of proof must be borne by the creditor before any debt-collector can be engaged to pursue such debts. The debt-collector must only be allowed to follow specific guidelines when doing so and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong.
Only lawful and valid debts, i.e. when a judgment order has been made, should be allowed to be reported to any credit reporting agency, to avoid creditors and debt-collectors from using such agencies to damage the interests of alleged debtors with unfounded or unproven debts.
Off the top, I believe NYC has similar laws where business are not allowed to charge extra for the use of credit cards however it seems online payments to the city (taxes, water bill, traffic ticket, etc) using a credit card are still assessed a processing fee. It seems NYC itself is confused about this.
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.
i agree. their comments are outrageous and is just more of the same. why should we expect a lobby group of debt collectors to really want enforceable new rules?
Just a reminder that the only question at this point is whether the draft summary missed, or misstated, something relevant in the comments that RegulationRoom participants made before CFPB’s public comment period closed on Friday, Feb. 28.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. If anything, I believe that a national statute of limitations would actually stop the process of zombie debt. We live in a transient society. Assume that a national SOL were to be adapted… If it were three years, would your argument be the same? Also, you did not address the issue of tolling. Again, we live in a transient society. People move from place to place. For example, I had a medical crisis in Illinois. I was not able to keep up with the debt. I moved back to my home state of Wisconsin in a town 25 miles away from the Illinois border. Now, because I live in Wisconsin, the SOL has passed and I can no longer be sued here. However, should I ever choose to move back to Illinois (which I can’t unless I want my credit destroyed and want to get sued) it’s as though the debt never went away due to their tolling laws and longer SOL. It seems that the rationale behind your argument is to solely protect those people who live in states with short SOLs (3-4 years). That’s not even 50 %. A reasonable universal statute of limitations would make things more clear. At the very least, tolling provisions should be eliminated should states have their own statute of limitations. At what point does the debt finally die?
For further reference on debt tolling:
http://collectionagencydebt.blogspot.com/2012/08/tolling-debt-and-statute-of-limitations.html
So, again, it seems as though the SOL matters very little in these cases. Perhaps the bigger question is whether or not eliminating debt tolling should be considered as a new rule.
CG
1
Check your state law, such as Illinois has its own Collection Agency Act. It's a licensed profession and Atty general for the state would be a start for a complaint. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1355&ChapterID=24
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
2
stopwithspoofcallerID, the purpose of Regulation Room is to provide an environment where people can learn about important agency proposals and discuss them in ways that help the agency make a better decision. Everyone who comments on the site is expected to remain civil and respectful. We welcome you to continue commenting on CFPB’s questions and ideas about debt collection practices.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Aturk
3
When two parties engage in a lawsuit, each side presents the evidence they have supporting their assertions. As a collector, I provide proof of the debt - invoices, letters to the customer or other communication with them to resolve the problem, signed applications, etc. The debtor is also expected to present some proof that the debt is not theirs. Yes, the assumption is innocent until proven guilty but you have to provide evidence to support your claim of innocence. If I offer a signed document that says you agreed to the purchase and documentation that supports that you did not pay, I have fulfilled my side of the burden of proof. The debtor also bears a burden of proof in our system. That's what the judge is for - to hear both sides, weigh the evidence, and make a fair decision based on the evidence and arguments presented.
View this comment in the discussion thread
DannyF
4
There's no need to be rude about it. There are some debt collection practices that should obviously be illegal. Other things that people are discussing here are obviously matters of convenience. To the extent that preferences are widely shared and outright prohibition wouldn't increase lending costs across the board beyond a marginal amount, outright prohibition makes sense. But if someone wants the ability to stop someone from conducting any and all robocalls from all phones, and robocalls help creditors recoup their loans, then the creditor should be able to charge a regulated fee for that convenience. I'm not saying that the debt collection agency itself would charge the fee (although my late-night post stated otherwise). Just that a consent-based approach is another option.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
5
Hi stopwithspoofedcallerID, thanks for your comment. It sounds like you do not like the idea of allowing collectors to leave messages asking consumers to go to a mini-Miranda warning website because it opens the door for spammers/hackers to do similar things. Couldn't hackers and spammers do this without the rule? Does the rule make this more likely somehow?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
6
That is an interesting suggestion, stopwithspoofedcallerID, thanks. How would a collector know (or when should it know) that the consumer is at a place in a state of emergency? How far away from the attack does the dangerous/hostile environment reach?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
7
Thank you for your comment, stopwithspoofedcallerID. Do you have a link to any of the state laws that you’ve mentioned? This would make it easier for other commenters to discuss your ideas. Since CPFB is in the fact-finding stage of the rulemaking process, any specific information that you have about the payment fees is beneficial. Do you have any personal experiences with how much the fees are or how often debt collectors charge them?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
8
Hi stopwithspoofcallerID, It seems that your main concern, when a message is left, is to prevent collectors from being able to block or spoof their called ID when contacting consumers. Are you also concerned with whether collectors should identify themselves in the actual message or does that create certain privacy issues customers may be concerned about?
View this comment in the discussion thread
MER
9
First, there may be a requirement to notify the creditor of changes, but many consumers don't, and second a consumer has to complete an NCOA for the post office to have record of it. Many don't. If there is a requirement that a creditor is to provide notice of a sale of the debt, pending sale, or sending the account off to collection, there shouldn't be liability on the creditor if they lack the updated information to actually reach the consumer. I don't want to see any FDCPA strict liability requirement that this notice must be given, but because the consumer has moved and failed to update the creditor and notice is not received, the creditor or debt collector is then stuck defending a lawsuit. If the creditor does not receive notice of an updated address, don't have strict liability that any notice reach the consumer.
View this comment in the discussion thread
MER
10
You are correct. There is quite a difference between send and receive. All I am suggesting is that a creditor only be required to send any notice to the last known address - not that the consumer receive it. If it is returned with a new address (and you presume too much if you think that all mail is returned if not delivered to the proper recipeint), then the creditor must send the notice to that new address. If the point of this dialogue is to ensure the consumer is protected, then require the consumer to protect themselves and provide this information to the creditor. If they don't then a creditor can't be hanged in a lawsuit for a letter failing to reach a consumer, when the creditor actions used the best information on hand.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Millertime
11
this is not necessarily true. There are services that text and the sender pays for the text.
View this comment in the discussion thread
cathysceebs
12
Mr. Dan, I bet YOU never had your phone number programmed into a robo-dialer? I can assure you that it's lots of fun. Costs too much to do manual dialing? Too bad.
View this comment in the discussion thread
osamet
13
Aren't fake collection companies using letters and phone calls very successfully already?
View this comment in the discussion thread
cathysceebs
14
To the Moderator, I do not think that answering 97% of the calls from an automated dialer within two seconds is a solution to my problem. I would like for Mr. Dan to explain exactly what the safeguards of using a robo dialer are. From my perspective as a frequent recipient of robo calls from debt collectors, the problem is a lack of ownership and impersonality of the collection agency when the debt is not assigned to one collector to handle. Years ago when a collector would call me, it would always be the same person. Now it is not. Assign the debt to one collector who would then take full responsibility for making all contacts with the alleged debtor. This could even include acquisition of location information.
View this comment in the discussion thread
DLin
15
There are requirements for validating a debt to the customer set in the FDCPA. There are investigation requirements in other aspects of federal law when a consumer disputes. A debt cannot simply be created out of thin air. Agencies who engage in this sort of practice are usually stopped relatively quickly and fined quite heavily (as well as subjected to cease and desist and regulatory action). The fact is, while a debt collector is required to maintain certain pieces of information and validate certain pieces of information, the consumer is not required to do anything further than say, "I don't owe this" to make collections stop for a period of time. Just like for debt collectors, the few that do it wrong ruin if for the many that do it right, consumers in my opinion should be required to furnish some sort of support of dispute.
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
16
Preserving the industry DOES protect consumers. If there isn't a lawful and enforceable way of collecting money that is owed, then future consumers will pay the price in increased cost for credit, or denial of credit entirely due to risk.
View this comment in the discussion thread
osamet
17
If consumers can receive phone calls on Sundays, there's no reason for them to not accept emails. Controlling which messages you get and how they are routed and presented to you, including what alerts or sounds they make when received, is only possible with email. Email is far superior to any other communication medium.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
18
Just to add to my comment: These so-called "Blue Laws" that prohibit cars lots being opened on Sundays and liquor being sold on Sundays, requiring the debt collection industry from closing down on Sundays (no calls, no letters, no contact) would not create any undo burden as many other regulated industries (car, liquor, gambling, etc) already abide to such "blue laws" and they operate just fine and make plenty of profits. The debt collection industry should be required to close down completely on Sundays.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Tfleeman
19
The problem is not with a form letter of dispute. The problem is that these websites and unreasonable letters lead unsophisticated debtors to believe that a creditor has to provide extraordinary proof that simply is not required. 'stopwithspoofedcallerID' (if that IS your real name) is correct that no legitimate dispute should be ignored, regardless of the form, but nor should debtors be allowed to abuse the system by repeatedly asking for proofs that are not required.
View this comment in the discussion thread
benitus
20
There is no need for these so-called examiners but there is definitely a need for courageous and dedicated attorneys determined to enforce the laws that the CFPB should pass, laws that protect the ordinary folk, the innocent, those who're unable to protect themselves, even those who may have actually failed to pay their bills because our constitution guarantees the right to our innocence unless proven guilty. We cannot allow expediency to deny us such fundamental rights. I believe there is such a thing as the Gideon Decision by the Supreme Court that provides for any accused to an adequate defence, so if any debt-collector or creditor for that matter denies the alleged debtor the right to have his day in court or to a proper defence, then the CFPB attorneys should come down hard on such violators. The principle behind any rules promulgated by the CFPB must ensure that no alleged debtor get bullied into paying up or blind-sided by the court into doing so. Sometimes, there are reasons why the outstanding bills are not paid and the consumer should be allowed to confront the creditor to resolve any complaints by the consumer before the bills are paid. It's a very straight-forward and simple situation actually. All the CFB needs to do is to enact basic regulations that protects the consumer and stipulates very clearly that the burden of proof must be borne by the creditor before any debt-collector can be engaged to pursue such debts. The debt-collector must only be allowed to follow specific guidelines when doing so and the matter should be referred to a small claims court to have both sides plead their case before the court issues a ruling, rather than to allow the claim to be reported to a credit reporting agency that will destroy the credit score or rating of the consumer without his knowledge, which is absolutely wrong. Only lawful and valid debts, i.e. when a judgment order has been made, should be allowed to be reported to any credit reporting agency, to avoid creditors and debt-collectors from using such agencies to damage the interests of alleged debtors with unfounded or unproven debts.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Waywiser
21
I still stand by what I said; CFPB should have a large core of undercover agents with arresting powers.
View this comment in the discussion thread
JohnEllis
22
Off the top, I believe NYC has similar laws where business are not allowed to charge extra for the use of credit cards however it seems online payments to the city (taxes, water bill, traffic ticket, etc) using a credit card are still assessed a processing fee. It seems NYC itself is confused about this.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Esok
23
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
stopwithspoofedcallerID
24
Link: ACA International (aka, Debt Collector Lobbyists)
View this comment in the discussion thread
simibryant
25
i agree. their comments are outrageous and is just more of the same. why should we expect a lobby group of debt collectors to really want enforceable new rules?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
26
Just a reminder that the only question at this point is whether the draft summary missed, or misstated, something relevant in the comments that RegulationRoom participants made before CFPB’s public comment period closed on Friday, Feb. 28.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Esok
27
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. If anything, I believe that a national statute of limitations would actually stop the process of zombie debt. We live in a transient society. Assume that a national SOL were to be adapted… If it were three years, would your argument be the same? Also, you did not address the issue of tolling. Again, we live in a transient society. People move from place to place. For example, I had a medical crisis in Illinois. I was not able to keep up with the debt. I moved back to my home state of Wisconsin in a town 25 miles away from the Illinois border. Now, because I live in Wisconsin, the SOL has passed and I can no longer be sued here. However, should I ever choose to move back to Illinois (which I can’t unless I want my credit destroyed and want to get sued) it’s as though the debt never went away due to their tolling laws and longer SOL. It seems that the rationale behind your argument is to solely protect those people who live in states with short SOLs (3-4 years). That’s not even 50 %. A reasonable universal statute of limitations would make things more clear. At the very least, tolling provisions should be eliminated should states have their own statute of limitations. At what point does the debt finally die?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Esok
28
For further reference on debt tolling: http://collectionagencydebt.blogspot.com/2012/08/tolling-debt-and-statute-of-limitations.html So, again, it seems as though the SOL matters very little in these cases. Perhaps the bigger question is whether or not eliminating debt tolling should be considered as a new rule.
View this comment in the discussion thread