Creditors generally do not send accounts to collection until after they have sent multiple notices. Requiring a specific notice will expose small creditors to liability beyond any benefit to consumers.
A standard first letter would be an excellent idea - especially if states would agree on the content. Consumers could recognize the format and know where to look for the information they need. Consumer testing would be a very good idea. I believe that industry members would favor this to reduce litigation over technical violations. Taxpayers would benefit by reduced federal court expenses.
The FTC got this one right. Alternative one is easy to communicate and understand. Terms like default and charge-off can be confusing and subject to interpretation.
A simple request for a call back is the best. "Foti" messages serve no one. It's clear to everyone that the call is from a collector and 3rd parties are unnecessarily inconvenienced.
Creditors should be entitled to require consumers to provide them with a contact address and phone number and to provide updates while debts are outstanding. If consumers do not do so, it should be fair for creditors (and collectors) to skip-trace or to reach them at other numbers. Collectors should not be allowed to make calls to work until they have made multiple attempts to contact a consumer at home.
Let's start by assuming the creditor provided something for which a consumer agreed to pay. Creditors should be entitled to get a phone number and address at which the creditor can reach the consumer and to get updates as long as a debt is outstanding. If a consumer chooses to use only a cell phone, the creditor and collector should be able to contact him at that number.
I agree with MER. I have experience as a debtor, pro-bono attorney and debt collector. You can't expect collectors to be judge or jury. The cease communication right is meant to to force the collector to sue or go away.
Dear CFPB: I hope you will separate the comments about debt buyers from those about debt collection in general. This is another area where you should throw the book at collectors telling deliberate lies or misrepresentations. On the other hand, there are too many federal suits brought by consumers who were not misled but who allege that the least sophisticated consumer might have been misled by a letter written in good faith. The only ones who benefit are attorneys. The CFPB has power under UDAAP in addition to the FDCPA to punish liars. They should use it. Collectors, who are just lay people in most cases should not be held to a strict liability standard. Punish bad actors but restore reasonableness to the act.
Honest, respectful and open communication between consumers and collectors should be the goal. If there are too many roadblocks to making contact with a debtor, more consumers will find negative information on their credit reports and have more lawsuits filed against them. Rule number 1 strikes the right balance. If the consumer responds, the consumer will receive the mini-miranda disclosure and information about the debt. If the named person is not at the number, is it really so awful to call the collector and let them know? If calls contiue after that point from the same collector, then there should be penalties. Professional collectors do not want to waste time calling a wrong number.
I do not think collectors would mind reimbursing consumers who are charged per call or per message. Add $5 for the hassle of getting the refund. Collectors should have a way to make contact with consumers who choose not to have a flat-rate telephone service.
Honest, respectful and open communication by all parties is the key to giving consumers enough information to identify and understand debts and come to workable resolutions for legitimate debts. It is also the key to stopping calls to wrong numbers. Collectors who are not honest and respectful should be fined or lose their right to be licensed.
My experience has been that people younger than I (a boomer) prefer to communicate electronically (emails, texts & chats). I know that when I was deeply in debt, I would have preferred not to have to speak to a real person.
There is a legitimate concern about unencrypted email or the potential for consumers not to consider that others may have access to their email. However, in general, we should encourage communication, however that happens - especially if it is in a form preferred by a particular consumer.
I believe that emails, chats & texts should all be considered writings. I don't know how you include all disclosures unless you direct someone to a place where they can read them in plain english.
emmacollector
1
Creditors generally do not send accounts to collection until after they have sent multiple notices. Requiring a specific notice will expose small creditors to liability beyond any benefit to consumers.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
2
A standard first letter would be an excellent idea - especially if states would agree on the content. Consumers could recognize the format and know where to look for the information they need. Consumer testing would be a very good idea. I believe that industry members would favor this to reduce litigation over technical violations. Taxpayers would benefit by reduced federal court expenses.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
3The FTC got this one right. Alternative one is easy to communicate and understand. Terms like default and charge-off can be confusing and subject to interpretation.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
4
A simple request for a call back is the best. "Foti" messages serve no one. It's clear to everyone that the call is from a collector and 3rd parties are unnecessarily inconvenienced.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
5
Creditors should be entitled to require consumers to provide them with a contact address and phone number and to provide updates while debts are outstanding. If consumers do not do so, it should be fair for creditors (and collectors) to skip-trace or to reach them at other numbers. Collectors should not be allowed to make calls to work until they have made multiple attempts to contact a consumer at home.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
6
Calls at a place of employment should only be made after multiple attempts to reach a consumer at home.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
7
Let's start by assuming the creditor provided something for which a consumer agreed to pay. Creditors should be entitled to get a phone number and address at which the creditor can reach the consumer and to get updates as long as a debt is outstanding. If a consumer chooses to use only a cell phone, the creditor and collector should be able to contact him at that number.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
8
I agree with MER. I have experience as a debtor, pro-bono attorney and debt collector. You can't expect collectors to be judge or jury. The cease communication right is meant to to force the collector to sue or go away.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
9
Dear CFPB: I hope you will separate the comments about debt buyers from those about debt collection in general. This is another area where you should throw the book at collectors telling deliberate lies or misrepresentations. On the other hand, there are too many federal suits brought by consumers who were not misled but who allege that the least sophisticated consumer might have been misled by a letter written in good faith. The only ones who benefit are attorneys. The CFPB has power under UDAAP in addition to the FDCPA to punish liars. They should use it. Collectors, who are just lay people in most cases should not be held to a strict liability standard. Punish bad actors but restore reasonableness to the act.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
10
Honest, respectful and open communication between consumers and collectors should be the goal. If there are too many roadblocks to making contact with a debtor, more consumers will find negative information on their credit reports and have more lawsuits filed against them. Rule number 1 strikes the right balance. If the consumer responds, the consumer will receive the mini-miranda disclosure and information about the debt. If the named person is not at the number, is it really so awful to call the collector and let them know? If calls contiue after that point from the same collector, then there should be penalties. Professional collectors do not want to waste time calling a wrong number.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
11
I do not think collectors would mind reimbursing consumers who are charged per call or per message. Add $5 for the hassle of getting the refund. Collectors should have a way to make contact with consumers who choose not to have a flat-rate telephone service. Honest, respectful and open communication by all parties is the key to giving consumers enough information to identify and understand debts and come to workable resolutions for legitimate debts. It is also the key to stopping calls to wrong numbers. Collectors who are not honest and respectful should be fined or lose their right to be licensed.
View this comment in the discussion thread
emmacollector
12
My experience has been that people younger than I (a boomer) prefer to communicate electronically (emails, texts & chats). I know that when I was deeply in debt, I would have preferred not to have to speak to a real person. There is a legitimate concern about unencrypted email or the potential for consumers not to consider that others may have access to their email. However, in general, we should encourage communication, however that happens - especially if it is in a form preferred by a particular consumer. I believe that emails, chats & texts should all be considered writings. I don't know how you include all disclosures unless you direct someone to a place where they can read them in plain english.
View this comment in the discussion thread