Recently, courts have held that debt collectors can escape 1692i's venue provisions entirely by pursuing debt collection through arbitration instead. As the NAF studies reflect, arbitration has not proven a satisfactory alternative. I urge the CFPB to include in a rule language interpreting 1692i as requiring debt collectors to proceed in court, not through largely-unregulated arbitral forums.
State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.
There should be no option to attempt to verify the debt. Attempts should always be required and if verification is not made, the debt cannot be further transferred.
The problem with disputes is the process is weakened by e-oscar. This process sees tons of paper work and faces road blocks. The solution is simply checks and balance and accesses to e-Oscars manual to see procedures for disputing errors on credit reporting. All the major bureaus do it and something must be done to empower the consumer not the credit reporting agency.
I have disputed debts with the credit bureaus but they do not even try to resolve the issues. You get a standard response from them. It is in their interest not to resolve issues. Furthermore, you cannot get them on the phone and if you mail your disputes to them you never get a response. They are part of the rip-off system to prey on consumers.
There should be only one credit bureau. They all contradict each other and it is a nightmare to get anything resolved. They should be highly regulated. This is an industry making money off making peoples lives miserable and ensuring no-one can get mortgages or loans. They are crippling the economy. They are in the pockets of the banks and big corporations.
Verification is a joke, it just means that they look at there computer again and say yes you owe the debt. They don't offer any proof that you owe the debt or that you are the actual person that incurred the debt. I had my identity stolen and I didn't even know it. They could not produce a signed credit card receipt to compare my signature.
The majority of the collection disputes I help my clients with are never validated with documentation. The CRA simply sends a letter stating that the debt was verified although the dispute letter specifically asked for documentation.
Yes, one of the biggest scams that consumers get put through is the collection agency saying discussions about the debt have to be made with the parent company, and the parent company saying they cannot talk about the debt because it has been assigned to a debt collection agency, Please FIX THIS.
I am concerned that there is some type of rewards system in place that somehow monetizes those who report when a consumer has a potential bad credit scenario. Are there incentives out there to ding consumer's credit? As a conspiracy theory it makes sense since it drives up the cost of a loan.
josephusmyer
1
Recently, courts have held that debt collectors can escape 1692i's venue provisions entirely by pursuing debt collection through arbitration instead. As the NAF studies reflect, arbitration has not proven a satisfactory alternative. I urge the CFPB to include in a rule language interpreting 1692i as requiring debt collectors to proceed in court, not through largely-unregulated arbitral forums.
View this comment in the discussion thread
josephusmyer
2
State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.
View this comment in the discussion thread
rb
3
There should be no option to attempt to verify the debt. Attempts should always be required and if verification is not made, the debt cannot be further transferred.
View this comment in the discussion thread
quino1974
4
The problem with disputes is the process is weakened by e-oscar. This process sees tons of paper work and faces road blocks. The solution is simply checks and balance and accesses to e-Oscars manual to see procedures for disputing errors on credit reporting. All the major bureaus do it and something must be done to empower the consumer not the credit reporting agency.
View this comment in the discussion thread
jfearon
5
I have disputed debts with the credit bureaus but they do not even try to resolve the issues. You get a standard response from them. It is in their interest not to resolve issues. Furthermore, you cannot get them on the phone and if you mail your disputes to them you never get a response. They are part of the rip-off system to prey on consumers.
View this comment in the discussion thread
jfearon
6
There should be only one credit bureau. They all contradict each other and it is a nightmare to get anything resolved. They should be highly regulated. This is an industry making money off making peoples lives miserable and ensuring no-one can get mortgages or loans. They are crippling the economy. They are in the pockets of the banks and big corporations.
View this comment in the discussion thread
drose977
7
Verification is a joke, it just means that they look at there computer again and say yes you owe the debt. They don't offer any proof that you owe the debt or that you are the actual person that incurred the debt. I had my identity stolen and I didn't even know it. They could not produce a signed credit card receipt to compare my signature.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Marlene
8
The majority of the collection disputes I help my clients with are never validated with documentation. The CRA simply sends a letter stating that the debt was verified although the dispute letter specifically asked for documentation.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
9
Yes, one of the biggest scams that consumers get put through is the collection agency saying discussions about the debt have to be made with the parent company, and the parent company saying they cannot talk about the debt because it has been assigned to a debt collection agency, Please FIX THIS.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Debt Neutrality Petition
10
I am concerned that there is some type of rewards system in place that somehow monetizes those who report when a consumer has a potential bad credit scenario. Are there incentives out there to ding consumer's credit? As a conspiracy theory it makes sense since it drives up the cost of a loan.
View this comment in the discussion thread